«

"Skip M" <> wrote in message
news:nusNe.1673$sw6.667@fed1read05...
> "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
> news:NecpJtH++...
>> In article <>, Stacey <>
>> writes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But...For those using full-frame bodies...that lens will be
>>>> worthless......to them.
>>>
>>>And how many $3500-4000+ bodies will be sold vs under $1000 ones that
>>>this
>>>lens WILL work on? IF they do release this expencive new body, it's not
>>>going to change the fact this lens is very useable on the MAJORITY of
>>>canon
>>>digital cameras.
>>>
>> Majority? Well, let's see.
>>
>> Works on:
>>
>> EOS 300, EOS 350, EOS 20D
>>
>> Doesn't work on:
>>
>> EOS D30, EOS D60, EOS 10D, EOS 1D, EOS 1D II, EOS 1Ds, EOS 1Ds II, EOS 5D
>>
>> I suppose, if you mean the numbers sold, rather than the number of
>> models, you could be right.
>>
>> David
>> --
>> David Littlewood
>
> You forgot, under "does not work on," D6000, D2000, DCS1, DCS3.

And... It works on ZERO Canon film SLRs.

In article <OhrNe.5597$Us5.3436@fed1read02>, Mark²
<mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>
>"David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
>news:NecpJtH++...
>> In article <>, Stacey <>
>> writes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But...For those using full-frame bodies...that lens will be
>>>> worthless......to them.
>>>
>>>And how many $3500-4000+ bodies will be sold vs under $1000 ones that this
>>>lens WILL work on? IF they do release this expencive new body, it's not
>>>going to change the fact this lens is very useable on the MAJORITY of
>>>canon
>>>digital cameras.
>>>
>> Majority? Well, let's see.
>>
>> Works on:
>>
>> EOS 300, EOS 350, EOS 20D
>>
>> Doesn't work on:
>>
>> EOS D30, EOS D60, EOS 10D, EOS 1D, EOS 1D II, EOS 1Ds, EOS 1Ds II, EOS 5D
>>
>> I suppose, if you mean the numbers sold, rather than the number of models,
>> you could be right.
>
>So nice of you to create a disclaimer for her...
>
>
>
I always try to be objective. Don't always succeed, of course.

David
--
David Littlewood

In article <2irNe.5598$Us5.5570@fed1read02>, Mark²
<mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>
>>>
>>> I suppose, if you mean the numbers sold, rather than the number of
>>> models, you could be right.
>>
>> So nice of you to create a disclaimer for her...
>>
>
>Him?
>
>
It is, I think, unlikely to become an issue which matters to me....
--
David Littlewood

"David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <>, Gisle Hannemyr
> <gisle+> writes
>>"Darrell" <> writes:
>>> "RON" <> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ok now you have me scared. I have just bought a Canon 20D with the
>>>> kit lens ( EF-S 18-55 MM ) . I am thinking of buying the following
>>>> two lens.
>>>>
>>>> ( 1 ) Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus
>>>> Lens .
>>>>
>>>> (2 ) Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM
>>>> Autofocus Lens
>>>>
>>>> As you can see this a heavy investment and makes me wonder if I can
>>>> use the lenses on the 5D if and when it comes out. Any input would
>>>> be helpful
>>
>>> Both lenses you mention are "L" lenses, so they will cover 24x36mm
>>> (film or FF dSLR)
>>
>>The designation to look for is "EF" (instead of "EF-S"), rather
>>than "L".
>>
>>It is true that in Canon's current line-up, /all/ "L" lenses are also
>>"EF" lenses, so either designation would ensure fill frame coverage.
>>But as I understand Canon's lenms naming system, "L" means that the
>>lens is designed to very high optical standards, while "EF" means
>>full frame coverage (and "EF-S" means a mount that will only fit on
>>certain bodies with an 1.6x crop).
>>
> According to Canon's own statements, to qualify as an L series lens, in
> addition to the highest optical and construction quality, the lens must
> have at least one aspherical element or a fluorite or ULD element. This
> excludes some lenses that have similar characteristics to L lenses - for
> instance, the 24mm TS-E has an aspherical element, and is thus designated
> "L", whereas the 45mm and 90mm lenses have none of the qualifying
> elements, and are not L lenses - though they are identical in quality, and
> even have the vastly superior bayonet lens hoods which are always used on
> the L lenses and less commonly on the other lenses.
>
>>So, in theory, there may be at some point in the future exist an
>>"EF-S" lens that also carries the "L" designation.
>
> --
> David Littlewood

"....to qualify as an L series lens, in
addition to the highest optical and construction quality, the lens must
have at least one aspherical element or a fluorite or ULD element. This
excludes some lenses that have similar characteristics to L lenses - for
instance...."

The whole L series thing is a bit of a marketing diversion IMHO. Just
indicates the lens uses some expensive parts and may have weatherproofing
etc etc.

I select lenses by performance / mass / cost, not on if the is an L in the
type number.

Having said that you do tend to end up with a number of L lenses....

"Lester Wareham" <> wrote in message
news:430cbaa4$0$25464$...
>
> "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> In article <>, Gisle Hannemyr
>> <gisle+> writes
>>>"Darrell" <> writes:
>>>> "RON" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ok now you have me scared. I have just bought a Canon 20D with the
>>>>> kit lens ( EF-S 18-55 MM ) . I am thinking of buying the following
>>>>> two lens.
>>>>>
>>>>> ( 1 ) Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus
>>>>> Lens .
>>>>>
>>>>> (2 ) Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM
>>>>> Autofocus Lens
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see this a heavy investment and makes me wonder if I can
>>>>> use the lenses on the 5D if and when it comes out. Any input would
>>>>> be helpful
>>>
>>>> Both lenses you mention are "L" lenses, so they will cover 24x36mm
>>>> (film or FF dSLR)
>>>
>>>The designation to look for is "EF" (instead of "EF-S"), rather
>>>than "L".
>>>
>>>It is true that in Canon's current line-up, /all/ "L" lenses are also
>>>"EF" lenses, so either designation would ensure fill frame coverage.
>>>But as I understand Canon's lenms naming system, "L" means that the
>>>lens is designed to very high optical standards, while "EF" means
>>>full frame coverage (and "EF-S" means a mount that will only fit on
>>>certain bodies with an 1.6x crop).
>>>
>> According to Canon's own statements, to qualify as an L series lens, in
>> addition to the highest optical and construction quality, the lens must
>> have at least one aspherical element or a fluorite or ULD element. This
>> excludes some lenses that have similar characteristics to L lenses - for
>> instance, the 24mm TS-E has an aspherical element, and is thus designated
>> "L", whereas the 45mm and 90mm lenses have none of the qualifying
>> elements, and are not L lenses - though they are identical in quality,
>> and even have the vastly superior bayonet lens hoods which are always
>> used on the L lenses and less commonly on the other lenses.
>>
>>>So, in theory, there may be at some point in the future exist an
>>>"EF-S" lens that also carries the "L" designation.
>>
>> --
>> David Littlewood
>
> "....to qualify as an L series lens, in
> addition to the highest optical and construction quality, the lens must
> have at least one aspherical element or a fluorite or ULD element. This
> excludes some lenses that have similar characteristics to L lenses - for
> instance...."
>
> The whole L series thing is a bit of a marketing diversion IMHO. Just
> indicates the lens uses some expensive parts and may have weatherproofing
> etc etc.
>
> I select lenses by performance / mass / cost, not on if the is an L in the
> type number.
>
> Having said that you do tend to end up with a number of L lenses....

I think it's more than just marketing
Whether intended or not, it is clearly a very good indication of lenses that
are not compromized simply due to expense, as most other lenses are.
Lesser lenses are usually a balancing act between performance and cost.
With the L (which actually stands for "luxury" officially) lenses, there is
a built-in and well-founded assumption that expense has taken a back seat to
quality. This is a reliable thing to bank on.

That is not to say non-L lenses can't be extremely good, or even on par in
performance and optical quality. For example: Canon no longer offers an L
version of their 50mm lens.
They don't need to. The 50 1.4 USM is superb as it is, and doesn't require
ULD or fluorite lenses to perform at levels of shrpness equal to, or better
than most L glass. In spite of it's incredible quality is the fact that it
remains affordable. It doesn't need the L designation, because it needn't
be labeled a "luxury item."

Another example:
Canon's 100mm macro 2.8 in both the older, non-USM (like mine), and the
newer USM version.
This is another lens whose sharpness and optical quality puts it right in
the performance league of L, but since again no ULD or fluorite is required,
the cost and contruction remain more on par with some other consumer
lenses... No "L."

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:zB9Pe.8622$Us5.6371@fed1read02...
SNIP
> I think it's more than just marketing. Whether intended or not, it
> is clearly a very good indication of lenses that are not compromized
> simply due to expense, as most other lenses are. Lesser lenses are
> usually a balancing act between performance and cost. With the L
> (which actually stands for "luxury" officially) lenses, there is a
> built-in and well-founded assumption that expense has taken a back
> seat to quality. This is a reliable thing to bank on.

My experience also.

> That is not to say non-L lenses can't be extremely good, or even on
> par in performance and optical quality. For example: Canon no
> longer offers an L version of their 50mm lens. They don't need to.
> The 50 1.4 USM is superb as it is, and doesn't require ULD or
> fluorite lenses to perform at levels of shrpness equal to, or better
> than most L glass. In spite of it's incredible quality is the fact
> that it remains affordable. It doesn't need the L designation,
> because it needn't be labeled a "luxury item."

> Another example:
> Canon's 100mm macro 2.8 in both the older, non-USM (like mine), and
> the newer USM version.
> This is another lens whose sharpness and optical quality puts it
> right in the performance league of L, but since again no ULD or
> fluorite is required, the cost and contruction remain more on par
> with some other consumer lenses... No "L."

Yep.

Bart

Kinon O'cann <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>
> Nope. That's a nice lens, and even after the 5D and other lenses appear, the
> 20D is still a very nice camera due to it's smaller size and lighter weight.
> It's also faster...
>
> Don't panic, since most people will stay with the smaller sensor cameras
> since the cost if much, much lower. Not everyone wants to spend over $3500
> for a camera, and another $1000+ for a lens. I have a 20D, and plan to get a
> 5D, and have no plans whatsoever to sell either the 20D or the 2 EF-S lenses
> I own.
>

I am a Nikon guy personally, but I see this issue coming up in the
future with Nikon as well [but at least they are stable, sticking to
just one sensor size so far, 2/3 crop (1.5x). I also am worried about
the future of the small sensor and thus the associated lenses. So,
other than the kit lens with my D70 (the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S lens), I
have only purchased lenses good to use on a full frame camera [that way,
they work with my film camera as well ... my N80). Granted, the money
invested in lenses, for me, is prety small, at under $1000, I still
would hate to have to buy new lenses [or old full frame lenses] because
a manufacturer suddenly quite developing for a transitional sensor size.
It remains to be seen what Canon will do as they have several sensor
sizes already, but the 1.6x seems pretty standard among the consumer
DSLR models. With Nikon, they never deviated from 1.5x (except for
perhaps a full 35mm sensor at some point).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at .

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:zB9Pe.8622$Us5.6371@fed1read02...
>
> "Lester Wareham" <> wrote in message
> news:430cbaa4$0$25464$...
>>
>> "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> In article <>, Gisle Hannemyr
>>> <gisle+> writes
>>>>"Darrell" <> writes:
>>>>> "RON" <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Ok now you have me scared. I have just bought a Canon 20D with the
>>>>>> kit lens ( EF-S 18-55 MM ) . I am thinking of buying the following
>>>>>> two lens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ( 1 ) Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus
>>>>>> Lens .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2 ) Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM
>>>>>> Autofocus Lens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you can see this a heavy investment and makes me wonder if I can
>>>>>> use the lenses on the 5D if and when it comes out. Any input would
>>>>>> be helpful
>>>>
>>>>> Both lenses you mention are "L" lenses, so they will cover 24x36mm
>>>>> (film or FF dSLR)
>>>>
>>>>The designation to look for is "EF" (instead of "EF-S"), rather
>>>>than "L".
>>>>
>>>>It is true that in Canon's current line-up, /all/ "L" lenses are also
>>>>"EF" lenses, so either designation would ensure fill frame coverage.
>>>>But as I understand Canon's lenms naming system, "L" means that the
>>>>lens is designed to very high optical standards, while "EF" means
>>>>full frame coverage (and "EF-S" means a mount that will only fit on
>>>>certain bodies with an 1.6x crop).
>>>>
>>> According to Canon's own statements, to qualify as an L series lens, in
>>> addition to the highest optical and construction quality, the lens must
>>> have at least one aspherical element or a fluorite or ULD element. This
>>> excludes some lenses that have similar characteristics to L lenses - for
>>> instance, the 24mm TS-E has an aspherical element, and is thus
>>> designated "L", whereas the 45mm and 90mm lenses have none of the
>>> qualifying elements, and are not L lenses - though they are identical in
>>> quality, and even have the vastly superior bayonet lens hoods which are
>>> always used on the L lenses and less commonly on the other lenses.
>>>
>>>>So, in theory, there may be at some point in the future exist an
>>>>"EF-S" lens that also carries the "L" designation.
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Littlewood
>>
>> "....to qualify as an L series lens, in
>> addition to the highest optical and construction quality, the lens must
>> have at least one aspherical element or a fluorite or ULD element. This
>> excludes some lenses that have similar characteristics to L lenses - for
>> instance...."
>>
>> The whole L series thing is a bit of a marketing diversion IMHO. Just
>> indicates the lens uses some expensive parts and may have weatherproofing
>> etc etc.
>>
>> I select lenses by performance / mass / cost, not on if the is an L in
>> the type number.
>>
>> Having said that you do tend to end up with a number of L lenses....
>
> I think it's more than just marketing
> Whether intended or not, it is clearly a very good indication of lenses
> that are not compromized simply due to expense, as most other lenses are.
> Lesser lenses are usually a balancing act between performance and cost.
> With the L (which actually stands for "luxury" officially) lenses, there
> is a built-in and well-founded assumption that expense has taken a back
> seat to quality. This is a reliable thing to bank on.
>
> That is not to say non-L lenses can't be extremely good, or even on par in
> performance and optical quality. For example: Canon no longer offers an
> L version of their 50mm lens.
> They don't need to. The 50 1.4 USM is superb as it is, and doesn't
> require ULD or fluorite lenses to perform at levels of shrpness equal to,
> or better than most L glass. In spite of it's incredible quality is the
> fact that it remains affordable. It doesn't need the L designation,
> because it needn't be labeled a "luxury item."
>
> Another example:
> Canon's 100mm macro 2.8 in both the older, non-USM (like mine), and the
> newer USM version.
> This is another lens whose sharpness and optical quality puts it right in
> the performance league of L, but since again no ULD or fluorite is
> required, the cost and contruction remain more on par with some other
> consumer lenses... No "L."
>
>

Yep, I agree.