once upon a time Chip Louie wrote:
> I was shocked to see that images shot with the IS version were
> not nearly as sharp as the non-IS version. I tried another IS lens thinking
> that maybe this was a fluke but the second lens was exactly the same. Then
> magazines started testing the EF 300 4L IS and nobody who tested the IS
> version in the lab could say the IS version was better as all tests
> indicated that the IS version was clearly not as good. So until I get my
> hands on an EF 300 2.8L IS I'll reserve judgment as Canon has lied before on
> IS and lens performance to promote the technology.
Hey, Chip, you sure have me thinking about seriously looking before selling
the 70-200 and getting the new IS version. Guess I will have to borrow or
rent an IS to test next to my non IS and see which is best in my
applications.
Thanks for your detailed response.
--
Harrison McClary
http://www.mcclary.net
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
