-Original Message-
From: Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>... It's just that from a $6000 lens (price of cameraworld for the
>400/4DOIS) I would expect considerable better results. Even more so as
>it is not much less expensive then the 400/2.8ISL which gives you 2.8
>vs 4. I wonder h
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Doesn't look very good"? The 400 4.0DO has slightly higher
> MTF curves (is sharper) than the 400 5.6L I own - especially
> in the 30 lines/mm curves.
Hm, are we looking at the same charts? The charts on Canon's webpage
show better curves for the 400/5.6L then the
> I was looking at the chart for the 400 DO IS. Doesn't look very good or
> am I missing something? Is this the compromise one has to take for a
> shorter and lighter lens? Does anybody made any real world comparison
> between the 400/2.8IS and the 400/4DOIS?
Robert,
"Doesn't look very good"? T
>
> Canon now includes the MTF charts for their lenses on their new
> webpage. Check it out at
>
> http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html
>
> I was looking at the chart for the 400 DO IS. Doesn't look very good or
> am I missing something? Is this the compromise one has to take for a
Canon now includes the MTF charts for their lenses on their new
webpage. Check it out at
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html
I was looking at the chart for the 400 DO IS. Doesn't look very good or
am I missing something? Is this the compromise one has to take for a
shorter and li
