> > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:40:21 -0500, you wrote: > > >Not as sharp as the non-IS, from what I've read. > > > Yeah. FWIW, Photodo rates the IS version at 3.4 and the non-IS at > 4.3! > > > Ken
Hi All, Ken, True, early on I tested two different samples of EF 300 4L IS against the EF 300 4L and EF 300 2.8L (heavily used, beat up rentals), lenses. The EF 300 2.8L is by far the best of the three lenses, the EF 300 4L is not far behind the EF 300 2.8L but still noticeably less crispy on FILM than the EF 300 2.8L. The EF 300 4L IS was CLEARLY at a major disadvantage when compared to the other, then available Canon 300mm primes but it's still a pretty good lens optically IMO and with its second generation IS, can be a shot maker/saver. I bought one to go with the EF 300 2.8L because I wanted to use the IS feature to create different looking panned shots for motorsports and use on the deck of racing yachts under sail (the foredeck can have very violent motion in even a light swell), but sold it. To my surprise I missed it soon after selling it and almost bought a nice used one I found for $800. IMO the Photodo test results are usually not far off from my own experiences on FILM but they must have tested pretty bad EF 300 4L IS lens as it's clearly a sharper lens then the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM or EF 28-135 3.5-5.6IS. Even used wide open the EF 300 4L IS approaches the optical level of Canon's EF 28-70 2.8L and EF 70-200 2.8L lenses used in similar fashion and that is not bad at all! I used these popular zooms as a point of comparison, many readers here will have a good idea of the differences in image quality they are capable of when used well. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
