Niklas Nikitin wrote: >snip>I am thinking of a 300/4L >Pro 300/4L non-IS >+ Sharper. > Photo rates this lens 4.3 vs. 3.4 for the IS version. > PhotoZone rates this lens 4.90 vs. 4.67 for the IS > version.
I haven't used either of them, but I truly believe they both can get excelent results. I probably wouldn't see much difference between the two. >+ More robust. > The non IS lens have less stuff that can break, also > PhotoZone rates this lens "superb" vs. "very good" for > the IS version in build quality. Unless you use your lenses as a hammer or something like that, I doubt this will be an issue >+ Faster AF. > PhotoZone rates this lens "extremely fast" vs. "fast" > for the IS version Well AF could be emportant for birds. Don't know. >+ Less number of lenses and groups. > Maybe this is no big deal... That probably is the reason for test shots being slightly worse at photodo etc. >Pro 300/4L IS >+ IS > Shorter minimum focus distance. >+ Built in hood that will stay in place. If you never shoot handheld, then go for the non IS, but if you want to shoot handheld often get the IS version. >So my big question is; which one to choose! Is the IS so good that I should >choose the IS version over the non-IS one? I think it comes down to my previous opinion regards Arvid Mestdagh * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
