70-200/2.8L IS version as good as non-IS ?

[jpbeale]

A little lens question: I notice at the photodo site http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html which tests lenses and publishes MTF graphs, that the Canon 300/4L lens (no longer made) is significantly sharper than the current 300/4L IS lens. The summary numerical rating is 4.3 for the older lens and 3.4 for the newer IS one, and looking at the MTF graphs you can see that they are quite different lenses.

Photodo gives a good 4.1 score to the Canon 70-200/2.8L zoom but they haven't tested the IS version of this lens. Does anyone know how they compare? I would have naively assumed the IS version is as good as the non-IS, except for this significant counter-example of the 300/4L lenses. When you're paying $1800 for a lens (70-200/2.8L IS) you don't want second-best.

[jpbeale]

Sorry to follow up my own question, anyway I found that according to the note from Tony Zipple (Dec. 10 2001) on this page http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/canon-70-200 it seems the IS version of the 70-200/2.8L is indeed optically as good as the non-IS, and was worth the trade-up for him due to the stabilization.

[jpbeale]

not directly relevant to my original post but I borrowed a 70-200/2.8L (non-IS) lens and even with the 1.4x teleconverter it is pretty sharp, and the autofocus is very fast on my D30. Here are some example photos: http://www.bealecorner.net/D30/011202/