FA- "Steal" a like-new Canon PS A75

"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

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

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

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

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 -
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

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 -
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

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 -
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

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 -
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

"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 -
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