Evrim, I believe the report you refer to was also from me. This was "First impressions".
I apologise, if I gave the impression that the IS lens was an OPTICAL improvement over the Non IS version. Having used both lenses together for some time now (and tested two samples of the IS), IMO the IS lens is very slightly inferior to the Non IS version when used at maximum aperture. This manifests as slightly lower contrast/resolution. By f/4 there is nothing in it. In all other aspects the IS lens appears to be as good as or better than it's predecessor. Craig Z ----- Original Message ----- From: "Icoz, Evrim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:14 PM Subject: RE: EOS 70-200L v. IS > This contradicts with the earlier report on this list that IS version is > considerably better then the NON-IS... I am not doubting anything but it is > interesting. > > evrim * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
