imagemeister wrote:
IMO, Regarding the design of the lens , IS is a compromise for user convenience by the manufacturer (Canon, Nikon). Now, Canon/Nikon will never ADMIT to this ......and their IS lenses are still very GOOD quality.
But if you go back in time and look at the Photozone reviews of the Canon 300mm f4L for example, - which is really the only lens comparison that I know of of an IS version vs a non-IS version, Photozone felt that the NON-IS version out performed the IS version, where upon, Canon quickly dropped the non IS version.
Please keep in mind what optical IS is - 3 or 4 moveable lens elements moving around - and these elements would otherwise NOT be there - were it not for the IS accommodation. They are simply an addition to the optical formula - though, I am sure it is engineered do have as minimal an impact as possible.
IMO, Regarding the design of the lens , IS is a co... (
show quote)
Don't know about Photozone but the Canon Museum shows the non-IS version of the 300mm lens was introduced in 1991. Six years later Canon introduced the version using IS. Maybe Photozone can explain why many reviews showed the non-IS version to be as sharp, if not sharper than the IS version. The reason Canon discontinued the non-IS version was listed by several reviews as it didn't work well in mid to low light situations. I got rid of mine for that very reason and bought a 2.8 version. I wasn't able to locate Photozone but Bryan Carnation of the-digital-picture.com has very good comments about the non-IS version. I know birders who covet that lens.