Just curious if anyone has any "real world" experience regarding the
sharpness of the 2 lenses above.
Here is what I know:
Discussion on photo.net and elsewhere seem to indicate that in objective
testing, such as on photodoto (sp?) that data show that with the addition of
the extra elements and groups there is a loss of sharpness compared with the
non IS f4 version. However, most folks also seem to indicate that in the
"real world" the difference in sharpness is not at all apparent or, at worst,
quite minimal and that as long as you are not shooting test targets there is
no real difference PLUS you get the IS.
Here is why I ask:
I recently bought a used KEH non IS version of the above and ended up
returniong it because there was visible dark dust inside etc.....while doing
so I decided that I might as well go for the IS version because the IS would
add a good amount of versatility with little trade off (though somewhat more
expensive). So I decide to try it out by going to the zoo. Problem is, I
changed too many things at once. I decided to try Velvia pushed to 100 for
the first time and also because of the lighting shot wide open most of the
time. I used a Canon 1.4 x teleconverter for a small % of the shots as well.
I got the rolls back today and have made a few observations. First of all to
my eye under a 4x loupe there is a definite increase in graininess to the
pushed Velvia, particularly in the out of focus background. Also, while
crisp, a good portion of the shots are not razor sharp. They were all shot
using a monopod and generally in the 1/60 to 1/125 shutter speed range with a
small % at 1/250. Now some of them are not sharp because of subject
movement, of that I am certain. But on others I also see some lack of detail
in feathers, hair etc that I suspect is not from subject movement. Of course
it could be from photographer movement LOL.......
Of course there is an obvious need to try going back with a tripod and remote
release instead of a monopod...however, until then, I am just wondering what
the experience has been for those folks that have used the IS version or both
versions. I know the non-IS version is supposed to be a razor sharp
lens...is the IS version as well. Isn't it too bad the f2.8 IS is so
expensive!!!!
Howard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
