If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored
and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - email or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed. But which one of us is the most determined to convince the other? As
with most threads it's one opinion against another. ;-) Sorry for the diatribe, folks. TomP. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:F9G%c.401394$%_6.198447@attbi_s01... Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - email or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed. But which one of us is the most determined to convince the other? As
with most threads it's one opinion against another. ;-) Sorry for the diatribe, folks. TomP. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:F9G%c.401394$%_6.198447@attbi_s01... Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - email or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Who gives a damn? Other than which ever one of you is the least mature.
"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message news Agreed. But which one of us is the most determined to convince the other? As with most threads it's one opinion against another. ;-) Sorry for the diatribe, folks. TomP. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:F9G%c.401394$%_6.198447@attbi_s01... Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Don-
I am sorry if this thread upset you. I was essentially termed a liar and a cheat, and while I end up dirty everytime I get in the pig pen with Tom, I wasn't going to let his slander go unanswered. Allow me to make two suggestions which may enhance your internet experience: 1. Go to Photo.net and subscribe http://www.photo.net/photonet-subscriptions Photo.net forums are adequately moderated and you will never have to wade through this kind of crap. It is truly worth the $25 2. Explore the "blocked sender" function of your newsreader. While this newsgroup has a charter, it doesn't have moderators. Off topic threads are bound to happen. Killfile ones you find offensive rather than adding to the mass by jumping into the fray. If I were in your shoes, I'd be disgusted reading sordid details of a catfight as well, so I would simply steer clear. It's *that* easy. Respectfully submitted, Robert "Don Coon" wrote in message news:LL90d.11745$MQ5.2305@attbi_s52... Who gives a damn? Other than which ever one of you is the least mature. "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message news Agreed. But which one of us is the most determined to convince the other? As with most threads it's one opinion against another. ;-) Sorry for the diatribe, folks. TomP. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:F9G%c.401394$%_6.198447@attbi_s01... Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Well hell Don, nobody is making you read it!
Tom P. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:LL90d.11745$MQ5.2305@attbi_s52... Who gives a damn? Other than which ever one of you is the least mature. "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message news Agreed. But which one of us is the most determined to convince the other? As with most threads it's one opinion against another. ;-) Sorry for the diatribe, folks. TomP. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:F9G%c.401394$%_6.198447@attbi_s01... Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Like I implied, spoiled children should be ignored. So, children, bye.
"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Well hell Don, nobody is making you read it! Tom P. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:LL90d.11745$MQ5.2305@attbi_s52... Who gives a damn? Other than which ever one of you is the least mature. "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message news Agreed. But which one of us is the most determined to convince the other? As with most threads it's one opinion against another. ;-) Sorry for the diatribe, folks. TomP. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:F9G%c.401394$%_6.198447@attbi_s01... Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Coon" wrote in message news:h6G0d.22500$MQ5.3584@attbi_s52... Like I implied, spoiled children should be ignored. Umm, hey Don "School of hard knocks" Coon- please direct us to where you implied this? Yeah, pretty much what I thought... Here is a hint, Don- you can "infer" that I am "implying" you can't even follow your own posts. Get back to me when you figure it out. What a silly thread this is.. I suppose name-calling is all some can manage these days when lacking sensical retorts. rt "yeah, my son is spoiled-- but he is smart" "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Well hell Don, nobody is making you read it! Tom P. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:LL90d.11745$MQ5.2305@attbi_s52... Who gives a damn? Other than which ever one of you is the least mature. "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message news Agreed. But which one of us is the most determined to convince the other? As with most threads it's one opinion against another. ;-) Sorry for the diatribe, folks. TomP. "Don Coon" wrote in message news:F9G%c.401394$%_6.198447@attbi_s01... Neither of you guys are going to convince the other so unless you're bored and need a fight to spice up you day (week?), take this elsewhere - or whatever. Neither of you are impressing anyone else. "rt" wrote in message om... "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Tom, for god's sake TRY READING! Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version. I'll try again as I have sympathy for the slow-witted- Photodo's sample was EARLY and likely not representative. So many pros can't be wrong about their L glass. Here is just one review lauding the IS version. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...00mm/index.htm Note- "In my tests, the most recent EF 300mm f/4 L IS lens was comparably sharp to the non-IS version of the lens that I used to own. Both were purchased new and in mint condition when tested. I had to stop the non-IS version down to f/8 to get comparable resolution performance to the EF 300 f/2.8 lens. I also had to stop the non-IS f/4 lens down to f/8 to get good performance with the 1.4x extender attached. Based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of image stabilization. It provides adequate sharpness at f/4 for my needs with pleasing bokeh for isolating the photographic subject from the background." Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11 groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO Macro. And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they? There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link. I mention professional Castleman's review earlier in this thread and figured a guy who knew how to use tinyurl also was familar with Google, but you now have a link to make your life easier. I also posted this earlier in the thread, which I believe you missed- "Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff." Yet more includes- http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/300_MTF_tests.htm which shows MTF charts for both lenses, IS and non. The non is better wide open and the IS is better at f5.6 and f8- smaller than that the appear identical. Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I thought you had something to add. To busy spouting invective to answer the simple questions I have about your supposed "testing", eh? Figures. rt |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Zoom lens for Canon 300D - Tamron/Canon | Siddhartha Jain | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | January 16th 05 04:35 PM |
Which Canon lens/es? | David French | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | December 7th 04 09:57 PM |
FS: Canon Eos Elan II System---MINT! | Jeff K | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | May 2nd 04 09:54 PM |
FA Canon EOS bodies, "L" Lenses, access... | J&C | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 20th 03 03:28 AM |
TRADE canon for canon | gene | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | November 1st 03 05:26 AM |