Link table for Canon Lenses

[West Coast Birder]

I started a few more EF-S lens threads, but I misspelled 2 out of the three in the title.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (Spelled correctly)
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (Missing the IS part)
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (Should be 18-135, not 18-1355)

Added!

 

[3Rotor]

A new entry for the EF catalog.

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

 

[West Coast Birder]

A new entry for the EF catalog.

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Done!

 

[Mr Roboto]

Sam, I see that there is a thread already for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-IS I assume).

Should we create another one for all three IS variants? I don't think they are sufficiently relevant to warrant 3 separate threads (they were introduced in 2001, 2010, and 2018, respectively). Not sure how precise you want these threads laid out for future reference.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Sam, I see that there is a thread already for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-IS I assume).

Should we create another one for all three IS variants? I don't think they are sufficiently relevant to warrant 3 separate threads (they were introduced in 2001, 2010, and 2018, respectively). Not sure how precise you want these threads laid out for future reference.

Hideta, yes, this has been a recurring debate, both here and on POTN. I think it makes sense to keep all the IS flavors in one thread personally. While the II is better than the I and the III might be marginally better than the II, I think that the differences are small enough that it makes sense to just have one thread. I think that the non-IS is different enough physically to warrant its own thread that is distinct from its IS brothers.

I think that in other cases, the differences between the I and the II are different enough to warrant separate threads. The 24-70 I and II are quite different, the former being constricted quite differently from the latter.

So, we can do this on a case by case basis. Before I make any changes, anyone else have strong opinions on this?

 

[Mr Roboto]

Hideta, yes, this has been a recurring debate, both here and on POTN. I think it makes sense to keep all the IS flavors in one thread personally. While the II is better than the I and the III might be marginally better than the II, I think that the differences are small enough that it makes sense to just have one thread. I think that the non-IS is different enough physically to warrant its own thread that is distinct from its IS brothers.

I think that in other cases, the differences between the I and the II are different enough to warrant separate threads. The 24-70 I and II are quite different, the former being constricted quite differently from the latter.

So, we can do this on a case by case basis. Before I make any changes, anyone else have strong opinions on this?

Sam, I added that thread:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (versions I, II, & III) Official Image Thread

A thread for all three versions of this (IS) lens. Please indicate which version was used if possible. Version 1:

focus-on-photography-forum.net

Perhaps the issue of grouping multiple versions will only be on past out-of-production lenses? Going forward, I think current lenses would generate sufficient posts in between generations that clearer differentiations would be warranted and more useful for those who use these threads to make purchasing decisions.

Please also add the EF180 macro thread into your table:

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

14 Elements in 12 Groups Inner Focusing with USM 0.48m (1.6 ft) Mininum Focus 1x Maximum Magnification 82.5 x 186.66mm, 1090g An awesome lens. Post some sample images if you have any.

focus-on-photography-forum.net

thanks for all your work!