> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: EOS Old Can Of Worms > > > I don't really mean to open an old can of worms.......but........ > > Regarding the Canon 300 f4 IS vs non IS versions.....there has > been a good > deal of debate regarding comparative sharpness, photodoto ratings > etc and I was > just wondering if anyone out there has actually used both lenses > and what you > feel about results in terms of sharpness and contrast with IS > turned off on > the IS lens vs the non-IS, both on a tripod. Yes, I know this > defeats the > benefit of being able to use the 300 hand held but I find that I > do most of my > shooting on a tripod anyway. The times I have used the IS > handheld I have come > away thinking the shots could be a bit sharper , but I have > tended to use it > this way with shutter speeds that are probably too slow even for > the IS like > 1/60. Anyway, I was contemplating getting a non IS 300 since I > use a tripod most > of the time IF the results were really sharper and more contrasty > with it...no > need to trade it in for results that are the same. I mean I > would just as > well have the IS as not if image quality is similar. So, anyone use both? > > Howard >
Hi Howard, I have owned two (2) EF 300 4L IS lenses and also rented at least two different examples. I have also owned one (1) EF 300 4L non-IS and rented several examples of this non-IS lens before buying my first EF 300 2.8L. I have additionally owned two (2) EF 300 2.8L's and rented them several times before which is how I got gut hooked on this lens for motor sports photography. I shot transparency films for sports for the most part and there is a large difference in image quality between the EF 300 2.8L and EF 300 4L vs. the EF 30-0 4L IS. I was like the first person to post this when Canon and everyone else (who just bought one), was claiming that it was as sharp as an EF 300 2.8L. Several months went by and once people got over the wonder of IS they realized that IS was messing up their images when compared to what the EF 300 4L and EF 300 2.8L could produce on film. I tried to tell them but they didn't listen. 8^) I tested the EF 300 2.8L, EF 300 4L and 300 4L IS on a heavy tripod with the same body and same roll of film. I shot all of them WFO and f/8, with IS off all at 1/250 and 1/2000. The EF 300 2.8L was very clearly the winner WFO and at f/8 followed closely by the EF 300 4L with a little less contrast and less extreme edge sharpness. The gap to third place was much larger an obvious, the EF 300 4L IS, images lacked snap (contrast), and were clearly not as sharp. The EF 300 4L IS clearly can't resolve as well as the other Canon 300mm "L lens primes for what ever reason. These difference were consistent with rentals and the IS lenses I owned. If I was in your shoes and already owned 300IS I would keep it unless there was some obvious problem with it or I no longer needed a 300mm lens. The difference is not small but for the most part most people won't see the differences unless they have transparencies side by side to compare. The reason is that almost no color lab can print well enough to show the difference on paper unless they are hand printing them. That said I'll be in the market for a nice used EF 300 4L IS in a few months after things settle down. Due to going digital I'm low on money and feeling a little short having sold my EF 300 2.8L even with an EF 70-200 2.8L IS and EF 1.4X. The difference is there certainly but I would keep what you have personally unless you are going to step up and buy an EF 300 2.8L. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
