Patrick Chase wrote: > Getting more concrete, I owned both the 300/4 non-IS and the 300/2.8L IS > simultaneously for a while. The 300/4 was slightly softer at f/4 than the > 300/2.8, but at f/5.6 and smaller it was not easy to tell the difference, > even under a microscope. I've rented the 600/4L IS, and thought it a tiny > bit softer than the 300/2.8, so yes, I'd expect it to test in the same > league as the 300/4L.
Patrick, Thankyou for your comments. User experience is always more use than MTF charts. And, after all, not many of us shoot only black and white stripes. I must admit that I thought that the 600 f4s were supposed to be better than the 300 f2.8. I have never used either, and never expect to. Especially the 600. Cheers Keith * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
