A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Table of all Canon SLR and Rangefinder Lenses ever | Find this table in the downloads section at ChristianSchnalzger.de, © 2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | EF and EF-S Lenses | 1987-2o18 | Scroll down for FD, FL, R and M39/LTM rangefinder series, and links to other manufacturers. This table does not contain evil lenses (EF-M, EOS-R). | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Pull above 'FX' tab down for long entry; use right scrollbar | Measured | Full Frame Coverage? | L | IS | USM | Specialty Lens | Weight (g) | Focus | MF? | Close-up (cm) | Filter | Dia x Length (mm) | Introduced | MSRP | Notes and Geekery | Private Notes and Evaluation | ||||||||
4 | Additional information to above columns (numbers: see footnotes at the end of this EF table): | 1) | 2) | └ IS generation; EVs of shutter speed gain promised over 1/shutter rule | └ white: specified weight; grey: measured weight without caps, tripod collar, etc; a (2) indicates two samples measured with identical result | 3) | └ original recommended retail price in USD or Yen (note that Canon has been increasing them massively over the lifetime of many lenses! If possible, this list aims to compile the initial MSRPs) | see footnotes 4-9 for all information pertaining to more than one lens | |||||||||||||||||
5 | click here for patents that Canon has been depriving us of - or see my separate table in the downloads section at ChristianSchnalzger.de | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | If you have additional information, esp. regarding manual focus with broken AF, please leave a comment here in the google doc! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | EF 8-15 mm f/4 L Fisheye USM | Y | Fisheye (circular to diagonal zoom) | 543 | USM | Y | 16 | rear | 79 x 83 | 2010 | 1249 | First fisheye zoom, going from circular to diagonal on FF | bei 12mm noch immer ränder nicht ausgeleuchtet, auch im pano nicht | ||||||||||||
8 | EF-S 1o-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 1o-21 | N | 383 | USM | Y | 77 | 84 x 90 | 2004 | 799 | |||||||||||||||
9 | EF-S 1o-18 mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM | 1o-17/4.6-5.7 | N | 240 | USM | N | 67 | 75 x 72 | 2014 | 299 | VF Pano ab ca 12mm, VF ab 14 mm | ||||||||||||||
10 | EF 11-24 mm f/4 L USM | 11-23/4.1 T4.3-4.6 | Y | 1166 | USM | Y | 28 | rear | 108 x 243 | 2015 | 2999 | ||||||||||||||
11 | EF 14 mm f/2.8 L II USM | T3.3 | Y | Cine version available, see right | 643 | USM | Y | 20 | rear | 80 x 94 | 2007 | 2199 | aka CN-E 14 mm T3.1 FP X and L F | ||||||||||||
12 | EF 14 mm f/2.8 L USM | Y | 538 | USM | ? | 25 | rear | 77 x 89 | 1991 | 2199 | same layout as FD version, but optical performance suggests new design: quite a bit less bad, although heavy CA. also, now 6 instead of 5 aperture petals | ||||||||||||||
13 | Cine CN-E 14-35mm T1.7 L S / SP | N | Cine Lens (APS only) | 3400 | manual | Y | 60 | 114 | ? x 241 | 2023 | 21999 | ||||||||||||||
14 | Cine CN-E 14.5-6o mm T2.6 L S | N | Cine Lens (APS only) | 4500 | manual | Y | 70 | 42750 | |||||||||||||||||
15 | EF 15 mm f/2.8 Fisheye | 15.3/2.8 | Y | Fisheye (diagonal) | 319 | AF | Y | 20 | rear | 73 x 62 | 1987 | 699 | equisolid ● not the same as the FD: EF is a simpler 8/7 design with 5 petals; FD was 1o/9 with 6 petals and inbuilt filters | ||||||||||||
16 | Cine Servo 15-12o mm T2.95-3.95 | (Y) | Cine Lens | 3400 | manual | Y | 85 | 114 | 295 x 167 | 2022 | 31000 | inbuilt 1.5x extender for up to 18o mm; FF coverage if and only if extender is engaged ● T2.95 only at 15-9o mm | |||||||||||||
17 | EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM | 16-82 | N | 571 | USM | Y | 72 | 82 x 88 | 2009 | 799 | optisch ganz gut; groß, SLR-Objektiv, 24mm=f4 | ||||||||||||||
18 | Cine CN-E 15.5-47 mm T2.8 L S | N | Cine Lens (APS only) | 2200 | manual | Y | 50 | ||||||||||||||||||
19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 L III USM | 16.48-34/2.9 T3.1-3.2 | Y | 789 | USM | Y | 28 | 82 | 89 x 128 | 2016 | 2199 | cine mod with manual aperture available: newsshooter.com/2017/11/16/technical-farm-cine-modded-canon-lenses/ | 12ooe | ||||||||||||
21 | EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 L II USM | 17-34/2.9 T3.3-3.4 | Y | 643 | USM | Y | 28 | 82 | 89 x 112 | 2007 | 1599 | ||||||||||||||
22 | EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 L USM | 16.48-34/2.9 T3.5 | Y | 600 | USM | Y | 28 | 77 | 84 x 103 | 2001 | 1499 | gehabt, 35oe, in jeder hinsicht irrelevant - ränder extrem stark verschmiert: WW erscheint selbst einem CV 15 welten unterlegen!, unscharfbereiche dreieckiges bokeh, flacher look, schärfenleistung scheint erstaunlich gering außerhalb der bildmitte. makrobokeh nett und mittenschärfe ebenso, doch das ist nicht genug.) | |||||||||||||
23 | EF 16-35 mm f/4 L IS USM | T4.5-4.6 | Y | 617 | USM | Y | 28 | 77 | 83 x 113 | 2014 | 1199 | ||||||||||||||
24 | TS-E 17 mm f/4 L | Y | Tilt/Shift | 820 | manual | Y | 28 | none | 89 x 107 | 2009 | 2149 | 5ooe, kein Blendenrad! besser als Zeiss ZM 18 4 (65 x 71 mm L, 35o g, o.5 m Nah, Drittelblenden) | |||||||||||||
25 | EF 17-4o mm f/4 L USM | 17.49-39/4.1 T4.5 | Y | 474 | USM | Y | 28 | 77 | 84 x 97 | 2003 | 799 | 25oe, extrem weich - im WW von 17mm selbst bei f8, zudem voll von CA. bei 4omm noch immer wenig schärfe. freistellung bei 4omm im nahbereich ganz nett, bokeh ebenso! die schärfe erreicht jedoch nie überzeugende werte und bleibt etwa hinter einem EO35 zurück.) | |||||||||||||
26 | EF 17-35 mm f/2.8 L USM | 18-34/2.9 T3 | Y | 534 | USM | Y | 42 | 77 | 84 x 96 | 1996 | 2ooe | ||||||||||||||
27 | Cine Servo CN7x17 17-12o mm T2.95 Servo | N | Cine Lens (APS-H only) | 2900 | manual | Y | 85 | 114 | 172 x 263 | 2022 | 23850 | T2.95 only at 17-91 mm | |||||||||||||
28 | EF-S 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | 18-82/4.1-5.8 | N | 469 | USM | Y | 67 | 79 x 92 | 2004 | 599 | |||||||||||||||
29 | EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM | 18-52/2.9 | N | 652 | USM | Y | 77 | 84 x 111 | 2006 | 1149 | |||||||||||||||
30 | EF-S 18-2oo mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | 19-193/3.6-5.9 | N | 596 | AF | Y | 72 | 79 x 102 | 2008 | 699 | |||||||||||||||
31 | EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | 19-131/3.6-5.9 | N | 452 | AF | Y | 67 | 75 x 101 | 2009 | 499 | |||||||||||||||
32 | EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM | N | 515 | USM | Y | 67 | 77 x 96 | 2016 | 599 | ||||||||||||||||
33 | EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM | N | 464 | STM | N | 67 | 77 x 96 | 2012 | 549 | ||||||||||||||||
34 | Cine Compact Servo CN-E 18-8o mm T4.4L IS KAS S | N | Cine Lens (APS only) | 1200 | manual | Y | 50 | 77 | 182 x 93 | 2022 | 4600 | ||||||||||||||
35 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 | N | 190 | AF | Y | 58 | 69 x 80 | 2003 | 199 | ||||||||||||||||
36 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 USM | N | AF | Y | 58 | 69 x 80 | 2003 | ||||||||||||||||||
37 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 II | N | 182 | AF | Y | 58 | 69 x 80 | 2005 | 199 | ||||||||||||||||
38 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 II USM | N | AF | Y | 58 | 69 x 80 | 2005 | ||||||||||||||||||
39 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 III | N | AF | Y | |||||||||||||||||||||
40 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | N | 200 | AF | Y | 58 | 69 x 70 | 2007 | 199 | ||||||||||||||||
41 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II | N | 198 | AF | Y | 58 | 69 x 70 | 2011 | 249 | ||||||||||||||||
42 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM | N | 205 | STM | N | 58 | 69 x 75 | 2013 | 249 | ||||||||||||||||
43 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/4-5.6 STM | N | 213 | STM | N | 58 | 67 x 62 | 2017 | |||||||||||||||||
44 | EF-S 18-55 mm f/4-5.6 IS STM | N | 213 | STM | N | 58 | 67 x 62 | 2017 | 249 | ||||||||||||||||
45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | Cine Sumire CN-E 2o mm T1.5 FP X and L F | Y | Cine Lens (FF) | 1100 | manual | Y | 30 | 114 | 118 x 1o2 | 2019 | 7410 | full frame EF or PL mount cine lens ● this is so far the only cine prime NOT to be derived from an existing EF photo lens ● very similiar rendition to the Sigma Art 2o T1.5, but the Sigma shows less field curvature and therefore more separation in the edges | |||||||||||||
47 | EF 2o mm f/2.8 USM | T3.2 | Y | 394 | USM | Y | 25 | 72 | 78 x 71 | 1992 | 539 | ||||||||||||||
48 | Cine CN-E 2o-5o mm T2.4 | Y | Cine Lens (FF) | 3300 | manual | Y | 60 | 114 | ? x 241 | 2022 | 21999 | full frame EF or PL mount cine lens (in fact, it's just the above 14-35/1.7 with an extender screwed into the back!) | |||||||||||||
49 | EF 2o-35 mm f/2.8 L | 21-34 | Y | 549 | AF | Y | 50 | 72 | 89 x 79 | 1989 | 1199 | not the same as the FD: f/2.8 instead of f/3.5 | kein USM | ||||||||||||
50 | EF 2o-35 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | T4.1-5.1 | Y | 331, 333 | USM | Y | 34 | 77 | 84 x 69 | 1993 | 449 | damit eigentlich irrelevant | |||||||||||||
51 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | EF 22-55 mm f/4-5.6 USM | Y | 175 | USM | Y | 35 | 58 | 66 x 59 | 1998 | Shortest EF zoom | Optisch passabel, 25 € | ||||||||||||||
53 | EF 24 mm f/1.4 L II USM | 25/1.45 T1.6 | Y | Cine version available, see right | 647 | USM | Y | 25 | 77 | 94 x 87 | 2008 | 1549 | aka CN-E 24 mm T1.5 FP X and L F | schärfenpoppen fällt noch geringer aus als beim Leica SX24. Schärfe: sig 2o 1.4 > sig 24 1.4 > can 24 1.4 ii * Leica 24 1.4 in Bildmitte geringfügig schärfer als das Canon II, am Bildrand extrem deutlich schärfer | |||||||||||
54 | EF 24 mm f/1.4 L USM | 25/1.45 | Y | 550 | USM | ? | 25 | 77 | 84 x 77 | 1997 | 1349 | whilst a functional copy of the lenses has demonstrated focus without being attached to a camera, I came across a "spares" listing on ebay detailling that neither AF nor MF worked, and Canon refused service due to discontinued spares!! the lack of MF might be due to a mechanical problem, i.e. not a USM problem, but beware! | |||||||||||||
55 | EF 24 mm f/2.8 | T3.4! | Y | 270 | AF | Y | 25 | 58 | 67 x 48 | 1988 | 349 | not the same as the FD: now 1o instead of 9 lenses | |||||||||||||
56 | EF 24 mm f/2.8 IS USM | 25/2.9 T2.9 | Y | 270 | USM | Y | 20 | 58 | 68 x 56 | 2012 | 599 | ||||||||||||||
57 | EF-S 24 mm f/2.8 STM | 25/2.9 | N | 125 | STM | N | 16 | 52 | 68 x 23 | 2014 | 149 | ||||||||||||||
58 | TS-E 24 mm f/3.5 L II | Y | Tilt/Shift | 786 | manual | Y | 21 | 82 | 89 x 107 | 2009 | 1899 | ||||||||||||||
59 | TS-E 24 mm f/3.5 L | Y | Tilt/Shift | 570 | manual | Y | 30 | 72 | 86 x 78 | 1991 | 1349 | ||||||||||||||
60 | EF 24-1o5 mm f/4 L IS USM II | T4.3-4.6 | Y | 789 | USM | Y | 45 | 77 | 84 x 118 | 2016 | 1099 | 7ooe, unterschied zwischen Vers l und ll marginal, Vers ll nur im Tele etwas schärfer. Bokeh nicht ideal, aber okay) | |||||||||||||
61 | EF 24-1o5 mm f/4 L IS USM | 25-1o3/4.1 T5.2! | Y | 665 | USM | Y | 45 | 77 | 84 x 107 | 2005 | 999 | 24oe | |||||||||||||
62 | EF 24-1o5 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM | T3.8-6.3 | Y | 523 | STM | N | 40 | 77 | 83 x 104 | 2014 | 599 | ||||||||||||||
63 | EF 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 25-82 T4.3-5.4! | Y | 360 | USM | Y | 50 | 67 | 73 x 69 | 1996 | 399 | f/3.5 only at 24-34 mm! f/4 by 35 mm, f/4.5 by 5o mm | 3oe, die schärfe ist für eine moderne, hochauflösende kamera selbst abgeblendet nicht relevant. außerhalb der bildmitte bei allen brennweiten sehr weich, insbes. im weitwinkel - unterliegt etwa dem Tamron 35-15o sichtbar! das 24-1o5 I scheint gleichauf bis schärfer. | ||||||||||||
64 | EF 24-7o mm f/2.8 L II USM | 25-68/2.91 T2.9-3.1 | Y | 805 | USM | Y | 38 | 82 | 89 x 113 | 2012 | 1899 | cine mod with manual aperture available: newsshooter.com/2017/11/16/technical-farm-cine-modded-canon-lenses/ | |||||||||||||
65 | EF 24-7o mm f/2.8 L USM | 25-68/2.9 T3.5! | Y | 910 | USM | Y | 38 | 77 | 83 x 124 | 2002 | 2099 | gehabt, 45oe | |||||||||||||
66 | EF 24-7o mm f/4 L IS USM | T4-4.1 | Y | 600 | USM | Y | 20 | 77 | 83 x 93 | 2012 | 1499 | ||||||||||||||
67 | Cine CN1ox25 25-25o mm T2.95-3.95 Servo | (Y) | Cine Lens | 3060 | manual | Y | 120 | 114 | 282 x 187 | 2020 | 30999 | inbuilt 1.5x extender for 37.5-375 mm; FF coverage if and only if extender is engaged ● T2.95 only at 25-187 mm, with extender T4.4 37.5-281 mm | |||||||||||||
68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | EF 28 mm f/1.8 USM | T2.1 | Y | 310 | USM | Y | 25 | 58 | 74 x 56 | 1995 | 449 | lens can manually focus without power, as confirmed by owner: dpreview.com/forums/thread/4547784#forum-post-64760189 | 1ooe MF, 16oe, unterliegt angeblich dem Sigma 28 1.8 EX DG, wenngleich das EF deutlich leichter ist. zudem sehe ich dieses unterliegen nicht unbedingt - vmtl ausdruck der sigma-serienstreuung. dem bereits recht weichen 24 sig art unterliegt es aber auch sichtbar. zum EF: The centre performance is very good at f/1.8 but the border and corner quality is basically non-existent at f/1.8 and not much better at f/2.2. There is a substantial boost in quality at f/2.8 though. The centre is easily excellent here and the borders reach already good levels. However, the corners remain somewhat disappointing. The sweet spot of the lens is reached between f/4 and f/8 where even the corners reach a good to very good (just) image quality. Dem stimme ich zu; das Bokeh ist nett, zwischen vintage und modern, mit grenzwertig viel CA, die freistellwirkung hoch. CA gering. an wünschbarkeit würde ich es parallel zum 7art einordnen; von nachteil ist indes die mangelnde manuelle steuerung! Schärfe auch bei f5,6 nicht auf dem Niveau hochauflösender Kameras oder etwa dem 7art 28mm; zudem starke CA. " is soft wide open. Stop the aperture down to f/2.8 and the centre becomes sharp. Mid-frame performance (on a full frame DSLR) is softer - even stopped down. Corner performance does not degrade much (if any) over the mid-frame results. I'm disappointed by the sharpness delivered from this lens - It's not up to my expectations. Another disappointment is the very obvious CA (Chromatic Aberration) the 28 f/1.8 exhibits at mid and corner portions of the frame. Proneness to flare is another notable negative characteristic. Though it is not bad, some barrel distortion is present. Background blur quality is decent. Out-of-focus highlights have 7 sides when the lens is stopped down thanks to a 7-blade aperture." | ||||||||||||
70 | EF 28 mm f/2.8 IS USM | 29/2.9 T2.8! | Y | 257 | USM | Y | 23 | 58 | 68 x 52 | 2012 | 549 | ||||||||||||||
71 | EF 28 mm f/2.8 | Y | 185 | AF | Y | 30 | 52 | 67 x 43 | 1987 | 249 | not the same as the FD: EF is a simpler 5/5 design; FD was 7/7! | ||||||||||||||
72 | EF 28-3oo mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM | T4.3-6.9!!! | Y | 1700 | USM | Y | 70 | 77 | 92 x 184 | 2004 | 2499 | 167o g specified ● not very good throughout ● 28-39mm = f/3.5, 4o-59mm = f/4.o, 6o-69mm = f/4.5, 7o-1o9mm = f/5.o, 11o-3oomm = f/5.6 | nicht besser als 28-135 bei allen brennweiten! 167og, 35=4! | ||||||||||||
73 | EF 28-2oo mm f/3.5-5.6 USM | Y | 505 | USM | Y | 45 | 72 | 78 x 90 | 2000 | 799 | whenever a USM and a non-USM version of a lens came out in the same year, they are optically identical | nicht schlechter als das 28-3oo L, es wird von allen jedoch als enttäuschend rezensiert. Rockwell hält das Nikon 28-2oo G für deutlich schärfer (kein Blendenring), andere achten es ebenfalls. the "G" is better than the Nikon "D." Don't get the "D," get the "G." Sehr kompakt. bei allen brennweiten sichtbare bis inakzeptable CA, keinerlei mikrokontrast. Im WW in der mitte durchaus brauchbar, am Tele dann selbst dort nicht mehr: unscharf, verschmiert, CA, detaillos. Eigentlich irrelevant. | |||||||||||||
74 | EF 28-2oo mm f/3.5-5.6 | Y | 495 | AF | Y | 45 | 72 | 78 x 90 | 2000 | wide-angle horrible outside image centre; 35mm is already f/4. gets better around 135mm ● overall not much worse than the 28-3oo L, but disappointing reviews throughout. many find the Nikon 28-2oo G visibly superior ● very compact | |||||||||||||||
75 | EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM | 29-131/3.6-5.8 T4.3-6.6!!! | Y | 537 | USM | Y | 50 | 72 | 78 x 97 | 1998 | 499 | ALL 28-… zooms measured start at 29 mm! ● strong CA ● "generally considered a mid-range performer, with a good value to performance ratio that makes it popular as either a starter lens or an upgrade from lower quality lenses" ● 28mm centre really great at f/8 and portrait focus distance, bokeh nice, but still massive CA. sharpness then decays with distance; almost irrelevant as a landscape lens, even if stopping further down. ● 35mm is significantly worse than 28mm; only f/3.5 at 35mm ● 135 mm acceptably sharp but hardly any micro detail; image edges nicer. bokeh still nice. close-ups irrelevant without any micro detail. ● compared to 24-1o5 4 I: same sharpness at wide angle, 28-135 lower sharpness at 1oomm | gehabt 2oo5, 1ooe, gegenüber dem 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM ist der vorteil nur die etwas längere reichweite sowie die offenblendschärfe bei 28-50; danach überliegt das 28-105er leicht. bei f8 sind beide bei allen brennweiten gleich. 28-135: WW ganz okay, starke CA; 35=3.5 signifikant matschiger als 28, dem Tam 35-15o sichtbar unterlegen. Bei 135 beide exakt gleichauf, brauchbar aber nicht toll. bei 28/8 im portraitbereich begeisternd scharf, mindestens in der bildmitte. Welten schärfer als jedes nikon AiS oder das EF 5o/1.2. selbst das bokeh spricht an. CA dagegen sind canontypisch mies und überpräsent. dann scheint die schärfe mit zunehmender entfernung gravierendst schlechter zu werden. als landschaftsobjektiv ist es so praktisch irrelevant (es sei denn, das beispiel zeigte einen AF-fehler), erst recht an den ecken, selbst mit f11 noch. bei 135 nett scharf, doch gibt es praktisch keinerlei mikrokontrast. das bokeh ist noch immer nett, und die bildränder sind sauberer. CA bei 135/8 noch immer gravierend. für nahaufnahmen am langen ende ist es irrelevant: keinerlei mikrodetails. 5oe mit defektem AF; 1ooe gebraucht. im WW dem 24-1o5 I (2oo● gleich, bei 1oo ist das 28-135 weniger scharf - so sehr, dass man sich fragen muss, ob ein cropping des 1o5ers nicht mindestens so detailreich ist! zum croppen auf das äquivalent von 2oomm ist es indes zu kurz (und nicht sooo scharf). generally considered a mid-range performer, with a good value to performance ratio that makes it popular as either a starter lens or an upgrade from lower quality lenses. das 24-1o5 ist bei 28 mittig und rand gleichauf, bei 1o5 mittig einiges schärfer und zudem eine blende schneller; rands gleichstan● * das 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM (36o g, 3o● erzielt bei 28 geringst und weiter im Tele zunehmend höhere Auflösung; außerdem ist es bei 50mm noch f/4, wo das -135 schon 4.5 ist. optimum beider ist f/8 im WW = f/11 im Tele; da erreicht das 28-105 nahezu die schärfe des 50/1.8 bei dessen optimaler f/5.6. | ||||||||||||
76 | EF 28-1o5 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II | 29-1o1/3.6-4.7 | Y | 362 | USM | Y | 50 | 58 | 72 x 75 | 2000 | 539 | bei 35mm nur f4, bei allen brennweiten recht weich, aber schärfer als das 28-135 | |||||||||||||
77 | EF 28-1o5 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 29-1o2/3.5-4.7 T4.1-5.2 | Y | 375 | USM | Y | 50 | 58 | 72 x 75 | 1992 | 570 | not very good throughout | |||||||||||||
78 | EF 28-1o5 mm f/4-5.6 USM | Y | 210 | USM | Y | 48 | 58 | 67 x 68 | 2002 | gut, aber kaum 3D | |||||||||||||||
79 | EF 28-1o5 mm f/4-5.6 | 29-1o2/4-5.9 | Y | 210 | AF | Y | 48 | 58 | 67 x 68 | 2002 | |||||||||||||||
80 | EF 28-9o mm f/4-5.6 USM II | 29-87/3.8-5.9 | Y | 190 | USM | Y | 38 | 58 | 67 x 71 | 2002 | |||||||||||||||
81 | EF 28-9o mm f/4-5.6 USM | Y | 190 | USM | Y | 38 | 58 | 67 x 71 | 2000 | reviewer: "Image quality suffers particularly between 28–35mm and 80–90mm, and there is heavy vignetting when used wide open" | |||||||||||||||
82 | EF 28-9o mm f/4-5.6 III | Y | 190 | AF | Y | 38 | 58 | 67 x 71 | 2004 | 2oe | |||||||||||||||
83 | EF 28-9o mm f/4-5.6 II | Y | 180 | AF | Y | 38 | 58 | 67 x 71 | 2003 | ||||||||||||||||
84 | EF 28-9o mm f/4-5.6 | Y | 180 | AF | Y | 38 | 58 | 67 x 71 | 2000 | 2oe, It is a very lightweight design, and has very fast auto focusing even without USM. Image quality suffers particularly between 28–35mm and 8o–9omm, and there is heavy vignetting when used wide open, 19og | |||||||||||||||
85 | EF 28-8o mm f/2.8-4 L USM | Y | 945 | USM | N | 50 | 72 | 84 x 120 | 1988 | f/3.2 by 35 mm, f/3.5 by 4o mm, f/4 by 6o mm | |||||||||||||||
86 | EF 28-8o mm f/3.5-5.6 USM V | Y | 200 | USM | Y | 38 | 58 | 66 x 71 | 1999 | II through V versions have plastic lens mounts ● only the original USM version supports full-time manual focusing; USM versions II through V do not. | |||||||||||||||
87 | EF 28-8o mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IV | Y | 200 | USM | Y | 38 | 58 | 66 x 71 | 1996 | ||||||||||||||||
88 | EF 28-8o mm f/3.5-5.6 USM III | Y | 205 | USM | Y | 38 | 58 | 65 x 64 | 1995 | ||||||||||||||||
89 | EF 28-8o mm f/3.5-5.6 USM II | 29-77/3.46-5.88 | Y | 200 | USM | Y | 38 | 58 | 64 x 69 | 1993 | |||||||||||||||
90 | EF 28-8o mm f/3.5-5.6 USM | Y | 321 | USM | Y | 50 | 58 | 72 x 78 | 1991 | 450 | only this USM version supports full-time manual focusing; the following versions II through V do not | ||||||||||||||
91 | EF 28-8o mm f/3.5-5.6 II | 29-77/3.46-5.88 | Y | 200 | AF | Y | 38 | 58 | 66 x 71 | 1999 | |||||||||||||||
92 | EF 28-8o mm f/3.5-5.6 I | Y | 200 | AF | Y | 38 | 58 | 66 x 71 | 1996 | ||||||||||||||||
93 | EF 28-7o mm f/2.8 L USM | T3.3-3.4 | Y | 862 | USM | Y | 50 | 77 | 84 x 118 | 1993 | 1299 | ||||||||||||||
94 | EF 28-7o mm f/3.5-4.5 II | Y | 285 | AF | Y | 39 | 52 | 70 x 77 | 1988 | ||||||||||||||||
95 | EF 28-7o mm f/3.5-4.5 | Y | 300 | AF | Y | 39 | 52 | 70 x 75 | 1987 | 357 | |||||||||||||||
96 | Cine CN-E 3o-3oo mm T2.95–3.7 L S | N | Cine Lens (APS only) | 5800 | manual | Y | 150 | 44650 | |||||||||||||||||
97 | Cine CN-E 3o-1o5 mm T2.8 L S | N | Cine Lens (APS only) | 2200 | manual | Y | 60 | 9999 | |||||||||||||||||
98 | Cine CN-E 31.5-95mm T1.7 L S / SP | N | Cine Lens (APS only) | 3500 | manual | Y | 100 | 114 | ? x 246 | 2023 | 22000 | ||||||||||||||
99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | EF 35 mm f/1.4 L II USM | T1.7 | Y | Cine version available, see right | 760 | USM | Y | 28 | 72 | 80 x 106 | 2015 | 1799 | aka CN-E 35 mm T1.5 FP X and L F | schärfer als I, Zeiss ZE, und Sigma Art (nach visuellem Eindruck; nach MTF liegt Sigma vorn |