>> |
Anonymous
>as I don't always want to look like a hueg canonfag
Paint/tape/etc. that shit.
>Also just to confirm, the 70-200 f4 non IS is sharper than the IS, correct?
Wrong question, two ways. Sharpness isn't the only thing in a lens's output to be concerned with, but the overall behavior of it: consistency across the frame, behavior at different apertures, bokeh, the way it's sharp (or not), flare characteristics, overall rendering, how well it's corrected for distortion and different aberrations and how it does those corrections, etc. Look at samples then pick the one you like. They're all probably pretty similar, though, since they're all Canon L tele zooms and probably have designs based on each other to some extent.
Second, unless you plan on always using this on a tripod or only at insanely fast shutter speeds, chances are in terms of technical sharpness the IS lens would be better in practice even if the non-IS does better on bench tests.
|