> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Niklas > Nikitin > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: EOS To IS, or not to IS; that is the question > > > Hi, > > As my longest prime lens, I am thinking of a 300/4L to use combined with a > Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. Canon have two 300/4L, the discontinued 300/4L > without IS and the present 300/4L IS. I will photograph mostly > large birds, > other animals and people with this lens. > > 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. > + 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. > + Faster AF. > PhotoZone rates this lens "extremely fast" vs. "fast" > for the IS version > + Less number of lenses and groups. > Maybe this is no big deal... > > Pro 300/4L IS > + IS > + Shorter minimum focus distance. > + Built in hood that will stay in place. > > 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? > > > TIA > > Cheers, > Niklas >
Hi Niklas, I have owned both lenses and can confirm that the IS version is not as sharp with or without the IS turned on when used in a similar way. Where the EF 300 4L IS has a definite edge is when used handheld under low light with stationary subjects or subjects that you don't mind getting subject induced motion blur captured on film. The IS version also gives up the very responsive AF performance of the non IS version as there is a little lag in the AF locking on and IS kicking in that may or may not be an issue for you. I had them both at the same time and also had/have an EF 300 2.8L. The EF 300 2.8L is the fasted AF of the bunch and also the sharpest so I kept the EF 300 4L IS because I would then have the best of both worlds. Eventually I sold the EF 300 4L IS because I found that I used the EF 300 2.8L more often and with the EF 2X I could get to 600mm which I could not do with the IS lens. BTW, I mostly shoot sports and portraits but some times shoot birds lately and 400mm is not enough, 600mm is not really enough! Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
