> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 6:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: EOS Re: Old Can Of Worms > > > I shoot just about all slides and scan with printing on an Epson > 2200....do > you think the difference would be obvious then? > > Howard > > >
Hi Howard, I can't say if the difference would be discernable or not on inkjet output. I generally have had LightJet prints made from my film scans and I think that at this level of output device the difference can be detected. Even on the new digital minilab machines don't sweat it, like I said, I wouldn't rush out and dump my EF 300 4L IS if it was the only 300mm lens I had. Unless of course I was going to step up and buy an EF 300 2.8L or better still an EF 300 2.8L IS to replace it, then I'd be running! 8^) BTW, the new EF 70-200 2.8L IS recently added to my lens quiver is every bit as good as my old EF 70-200 2.8L non-IS lens was. This is certainly the case as use on my 1D, film I have not had a chance to use it with yet and may NEVER! The IS operating in mode "1" seems to work more effectively the on the EF 300 4L IS and while it seems to be more sluggish locking focus compared with the non"IS" zoom it tracks focus darned near perfectly on the EOS 1D. The lens used with IS in mode "2" seems to work about the same as on the EF 300 4L IS though you would think that it would benefit from the improved next gen. IS included in these newer lenses. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
