Chip Louie wrote:
> Then Photodo and CI test results get
> published saying the same thing that I had posted moths earlier, the EF
300
> 4L IS was not nearly as good a lens as the non-IS versions. Then people
> like myself who had lots of experience shooting with the EF 300 2.8L's
> started shooting with the EF 300 4L IS and they too agreed that it was not
a
> great lens in the vein of the EF 300 4L or EF 300 2.8L lenses.
Chip,
I have not used any of these lenses, but am seriously considering the 300 f4
IS.
While I accept your statement that the non IS is better than the IS version,
I'm not so happy with the Photodo results, in general.
300 f4 non IS
Weighted MTF @f4.0 = 0.84 @f8.0 = 0.84
Average Weighted MTF = 0.84 Grade: 4.3
300 f4 IS
Weighted MTF @f4.0 = 0.71 @f8.0 = 0.80
Average Weighted MTF of 0.76 Grade 3.4
100-400 IS
Weighted MTF 100 mm @f4.5 = 0.78 @f8.0 = 0.80
180 mm @f5.0 = 0.77 @f8.0 = 0.82
300 mm @f5.0 = 0.75 @f8.0 = 0.79
400 mm @f5.6 = 0.75 @f8.0 = 0.76
Average Weighted MTF of 0.78 Grade 3.6
Can a 100-400 zoom really be better than a 300 prime?
(That statement should get some reaction!)
One last set of figures from Photodo, for the 600 f4 IS.
Weighted MTF f5.6 0.81 f8 0.82
Average weighted MTF 0.81 Grade 4.0
So the old 300 f4 non IS was better than the latest 600, and the 100-400
(at 180 mm) is the same at f8.0.
Cheers
Keith
(Who is trying to choose the best lens, but is just getting more and more
confused)
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
