Robert Meier wrote:
>
> --- Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NOt having used the IS lens, I can't comment
> > from direct experience, but it does seem to be
> > the general consensus that the IS version is
> > indeed better than the old one...from both tests
> > and users, alike.
>
> This is not true for the 400/5.6IS, AFAIK. Obviously, the quality
> depends a lot on the design. A good lens with good components, good
> coatings, etc can be better then a bad lens that has fewer elements. In
> other words, a new design with more elements does not make the lens
> necessary worse then a previous design with less elements.
>
> Robert
>
> __________________________________________________
>
I was speaking solely of the 70-200, which is
what the original post questioned. AFAIK, none
of the fixed focal length IS superteles exceed
their non IS predecessors. It seems to be the
subject of some surprise that the 70-200 IS is a
better lens than its predecessor, mostly because
of the addition of the IS elements.
Skip
--
*********************************************************************
SHADOWCATCHER IMAGERY
Fine Art Black and White Photography
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip and Heather Middleton
*********************************************************************
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
