07-14-2010, 06:09 PM
[quote name='you2' date='11 July 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1278848795' post='956']
Thanks wim. The reason I asked was not with regards to purchasing; but rather I read an article that made comments to the older lens having much better rendering. It was in context to how lenses developed for digital sensors lacked smooth colour transition.
[/quote]
I currently have both versions of that lens and have tested them rigorously against each other using a rigid tripod, MLU and remote release at a range of FLs from f4 through to f16. As regards sharpness, there's not much between them from 70-110mm; then the IS version starts to pull away being slightly sharper at 150mm and noticeably sharper at 180-200mm. That's not to say the non-IS is bad - just that the IS version is better as regards sharpness. However, when it comes to colour and microcontrast, the non-IS version is better IMHO. It has rich 'creamy' colours rather like my 17-40L; the IS version is slightly 'grittier' with a slightly busier bokeh. I have continued to use and compare both versions to decide which one to keep as I can't justify both. The deal-maker for me is the IS; it really is superb and makes the newer lens much more versatile, especially in lower light so I'll shortly eBay the non-IS lens.
Michael
Thanks wim. The reason I asked was not with regards to purchasing; but rather I read an article that made comments to the older lens having much better rendering. It was in context to how lenses developed for digital sensors lacked smooth colour transition.
[/quote]
I currently have both versions of that lens and have tested them rigorously against each other using a rigid tripod, MLU and remote release at a range of FLs from f4 through to f16. As regards sharpness, there's not much between them from 70-110mm; then the IS version starts to pull away being slightly sharper at 150mm and noticeably sharper at 180-200mm. That's not to say the non-IS is bad - just that the IS version is better as regards sharpness. However, when it comes to colour and microcontrast, the non-IS version is better IMHO. It has rich 'creamy' colours rather like my 17-40L; the IS version is slightly 'grittier' with a slightly busier bokeh. I have continued to use and compare both versions to decide which one to keep as I can't justify both. The deal-maker for me is the IS; it really is superb and makes the newer lens much more versatile, especially in lower light so I'll shortly eBay the non-IS lens.
Michael