> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Bantel
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 2:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EOS photodo scores of the two 300/4L's
>
>
> 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
>
Hi,
Thomas, I'm still here! I've just been really busy working and messing
about. I did do quite a bit of testing with the EF 300 4L IS and EF 300 4L
comparing them to the EF 300 2.8L a long time ago because I didn't believe
that the EF 300 4L IS I tested was quite right. It turns out that the
non-IS version IS much sharper than the IS version for some reason. I
suppose that Canon messed with the lens design to utilize the IS feature
that was so popular when introduced on the EF 28-135IS and EF 75-300IS
consumer lenses.
Photodo's numbers make the EF 300 4L IS look pretty bad but in truth the EF
300 4L and EF 300 2.8L are just incredible lenses and the IS version just is
not as incredible a lens design. This is NOT to say that the EF 300 4L is a
bad lens just not as sharp and crispy as the non IS versions. I have (well
actually I had one, I dropped it off a boat one day and the part that hurt
was that the rail wasn't even in the water when I did), an EF 300 4L IS and
actually liked it plenty, it's very good for certain types of shots where
you have to shoot action without any camera support.
Like on the deck of a 50' ultra-light displacement yacht in a 25 knot breeze
with 35 knot puffs and a 150% jenny and 100% main still up. For action
shots like these you cannot use an EF 300 2.8L, it's just too heavy and
dangerous and the IS feature can make the shots and still have very good
sharpness without added camera motion induced blur.
Don't be put off by the lower test scores of the IS version. A lot of
people on the EOS list will tell you that the EF 300 4L IS is as sharp or
sharper then an EF 300 4L non IS or even as the EF 300 2.8L but in my
experience they are dreaming. Most people on the EOS list with this opinion
are shooting handheld using negative films processed at the local one-hour
automatic mini-lab machine and will admit as much. If they used good
transparency films and good camera support they'd see the differences as
easily as anyone with a critical eye. The reason for the apparent broad
scope of what's poor what's good and what's great is the test method that
most people on the list use. The printed images people use for comparison
of lens quality are second generation images with added distortions, loss of
contrast and sharpness from the printing process. These are typically not
repeatable and therefore not a reliable indicator of quality. Transparency
images are FIRST generation images, this is to say they are images that are
not subject to the added distortions, loss of (or maybe worse, added),
contrast or sharpness that are inherent in printed images.
It's like the nature photo site that someone posted to the list recently
about Arca Swiss ballhead alternatives. The site is full of beautiful film
and composite digital images by the way. Anyway the site has posted max.
resolution Nikon D1X and D1 images of a brick wall using a Nikon 300mm 2.8
lens. He then shot images setup and positioned the same with an F5 on
Velvia and scaned it using a 2700dpi Nikon scanner. To compare the images
he resize the scanned 2700dpi image (hence lowering the resolution even
more), to get the same image sizes to compare. He then proclaims that film
is dead and cannot compare to digital. Why didn't he use a drum scanner to
get the most out of the slide for this comparison? Velvia well exposed and
processed will show detail down to 8,000 dpi and beyond. You tell me, is
there something wrong with this test?
Completing the raving maniac portion of our flight... IMO, if you shoot
action shots on the move or handheld without a monopod the EF 300 4L IS
makes a great middle length lens. If on the other hand you are a quality
freak shooting tranny films from a heavy tripod get a nice used EF 300 4L
non IS and be happy!
Regards,
Chip Louie
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
