Dan Honemann wrote:
>
> This has probably been addressed before, but I can't seem to find it
> in the archives.... Why does the IS version of the 300/4L score such
> low marks (3.4) compared to the older, non-IS version (4.3)? I
> thought they both used the same optical forumla; can the extra
> elements for IS really degrade performance _that_ much?
>
They do NOT use the same optical formula. The new one is a totally
new design
> At first I took this to be a typo, but bringing up the detailed
> numbers and looking at the MTF charts indicates that photodo found
> the older version to have substantially higher numbers than the IS:
If our fellow list member Chip Louie is still around, he will be glad
to confirm the Photodo numbers in the case of those two lenses. He
wrote something along this line some time ago.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
