Talk:Canon EF lens mount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lens table 2 Lens articles by category? 3 Canon long L lens "putty" color 4 Tables for lenses: any benefit? 5 Environmental Sealing

[edit] Lens table

I hate the way that table looks - no offense at all to the author. Canon's lenses have standard nomenclature like "EF28mm f/1.8 USM" that this doesn't follow.

I'm wondering whether it's worthwhile to fix it, because the Canon Lens Museum (linked at the bottom of the page) has all that information in it - should that be replicated? Joe n bloe 19:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Canon's nomenclature should be at least partially inherited. Like any large tabular data, I think it should further be moved to "List of EF lenses manufactured by Canon". If there's interest in writing articles about particularly odd items in the lineup, that would probably work fine as well. Maybe something cute with EasyTimeline to show the ranges covered. And maybe someone will write an article about the weird EF 35-80 f/4-5.6 PZ, too. grendel|khan 10:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll see if I can buy one of those weird Power Zoom (PZ) lenses. :) Then I can write something about it. Joseph N Hall 00:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd definitely be interesting. There was a period when people thought that Power Zoom was something SLRs needed; Pentax at least did some too.

As to the table; I agree that the biggest problem is that the lens names are not actually shown; there's just a big Article link instead. We should definitely have a list, though, and I don't see that it should necessarily be broken out into a separate article unless we really need to. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As an addition, I do in general prefer to do group lens articles, though; e.g. Canon EF 50 mm lens. Articles on individual lens models tend to be very short and full of boilerplate. Doing a group of similar lenses together allows them to be compared and contrasted a bit more. I'm doing this on Canon FD 200 mm lens right now, for instance - it's useful to see the range. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Covering lenses one per article seems to make the best sense to me, or at most one "type" per article - e.g. grouping the EF 400/2.8 I, II, and IS together along with an explanation of how the lens evolved. The 50mm page that covers everything from the 50/1.0 to the 50/1.8 II is just ... well, nuts. What does the EF 50/1.0 have to do with the 50/1.8 II? Not a thing. They have completely different uses. Lenses like the 50/1.0, 85/1.2, and 200/1.8 (I and II) deserve their own pages, or at least some kind of detailed exposition whenever someone gets around to it. I have a 200/1.8 so I may be biased of course. The 85/1.8 and 100/2, on the other hand, are basically the same lens and would do fine on the same page. Joseph N Hall 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, all the EF 50mm lenses have in common that they're the same focal length on the same system, and one page on all of them make it easier, IMO, to compare and contrast - so you can see how honking heavy that f/1.0 L lens is, for example.

I can see your point, though. The biggest issue I have on it right now is that I don't think we have enough data on any of those lenses to write more than a stub article about each of them - and that ends up being mostly boilerplate and specification table. Ideally, of course, we could write much more - but that would require us to have enough info to fill out a whole article on design philosophy, performance including MTF graphs and photos of test charts, sample photos, etc etc. Frankly, we don't have that now. I'd love it if we did; however, WP:NOR in general precludes us doing our own lens testing and publishing it here!

There's plenty of published data for EF lenses. This includes MTF charts from Canon. (They are not "fair use" though.) It is easy to find sources supporting claims like "the 200/1.8 and 135/2 are the sharpest lenses Canon has made". Likewise there is no "original research" involved in taking a photo with an 85/1.2 wide open illustrating its shallow depth of field (and the aberrations/vignetting that come along with that) and adding that to an article - no more than there is in taking a photo through a fisheye lens and posting that as an example of what a photo taken with a fisheye lens looks like. There is lots to write about Canon lenses. You could look at the Lens Work books for example. (I have all three - one is for FD and the other two are for EF.) There are the SportsShooter forums, the Fred Miranda forums, Luminous Landscape, and so on for more information. Etc. etc. etc. :-) Joseph N Hall 11:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that random user reviews from the likes of SportsShooter, Fred Miranda sites are really usable for wikipedia, but commissioned reviews from those kind of sites can definitely be used. I do believe overall rankings from e.g. Fred Miranda could be used, though.

Notably, the FD Lens Work book is available online: http://www.canonfd.com/lenswork.htm - obviously without official sanction, but I'm sure Canon no longer cares, they no longer support FD systems at all.

So I'd say: if you have enough info to make an article about a specific lens model stand by itself, go for it! Obviously some lenses have been talked about more than others. It might be valuable to have an overview article on similar focal-length lenses for comparitive statistics and (referenced) opinions, too.

There's certainly a lot of scope for better written content about photographic equipment on Wikipedia, Canon or otherwise ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I just prefer seeing one longer article about a whole class of lenses than a collection of little stub articles with no more than a paragraph about each one. Your preferences may indeed vary! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the table format hasn't really changed at all since this thread was started. I'd like to make at least one or two changes:

1. The "Macro" column should be removed from the Zoom table. They're separate tables, and no zooms are macro. What point is there in having a column where every entry is "No"?
2. The "Article" link column should be removed. This is almost as bad, IMO, as a "here" link. Why not link the focal length (a lens's primary identifier) to its article?

I propose the following format:

Focal length	Aperture	USM	IS	L-series	DO
16-35 mm	2.8	Yes	No	Yes	No

Note that I've also made the centered text a table-global setting, which should simplify the markup. Comments?

-- Fru1tbat 13:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted to make those very changes for some time now, but have never had a sufficiently large block of time to do so. Obviously, I support this change. Mindmatrix 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced that the tables need a complete re-write. The first column should really be the full lens names (e.g. "EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM"), with a key somewhere describing how to interpret the name. Canon's naming system is pretty straightforward and consistent. The way the tables are set up right now is pretty difficult to read, and the lenses aren't easily distinguished, especially when there are multiple lenses that use the same focal length range. The remaining columns in the table should give information that can't be gleaned from the lens name, like other lens features (full-time manual focus, etc.?) and dates produced (the Canon Camera Museum has introduction dates, but not end of production dates). Maybe something like:

Lens	Introduced	In production	Latest variant	Features	Notes
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM	December 2001	Yes	-	FT-M, I/R, ...
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM	November 1992	Yes	II	FT-M

I'd personally prefer abbreviations for the "Features" column, which would mean adding a key, of course. I'd reserve the "Comments" column for text notes

Other columns that could be added:

• AF motor type (i.e. ring USM, micro USM, whatever)
• Maximum magnification

Any other ideas?

-- Fru1tbat 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lens articles by category?

Instead of grouping lenses in articles by focal lengths I thought it might be better to group them into articles by common usage of lenses. I created this article on portrait lenses to show what I mean. Reub2000 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My issue with that is that I feel that it breaks NPOV and is limiting. Not everyone uses the same lenses for the same purposes; I'd say that unless Canon or someone else fairly authoritative groups the lenses that way, we shouldn't. A generic article on the Portrait lens needs to exist, of course. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon long L lens "putty" color

Happen to have a reference for that? I have heard it before and I believe you, but I've never seen it "from the horse's mouth" so to speak. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have already contradicted myself. Chuck Westfall, "the" Canon USA rep who interacts with the online community, had the following to say early this year:

Interestingly, Canon has not officially named the color(s) that have been used over the years for its "white" lenses. This specification is never listed for current EF lenses, even in our internal technical documentation. However, the first "white" Canon lens was the FD600mm f/4.5 S.S.C., which was announced in July of 1976. At that time, Canon Inc. described the lens barrel color as "Silver Grey." They said that the new finish was selected due to the suggestions of professional photographers who felt that the lighter color would absorb less heat than a black lens barrel, thus reducing the likelihood of condensation in humid environments. Over time, the color of subsequent "white" lenses became brighter and slightly warmer in tint than the FD600mm, but the functionality has remained the same. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, our "white" lenses were often outnumbered by the black lenses of our competitors at sporting events. But ever since the mid-1990s with the introduction of the EOS-1N and its successors, Canon has gained the #1 position in market share and our "white" lenses have become the norm rather than the exception among professional photographers worldwide.

Still, I believe that Canon has used the term "putty" to refer to the color, but I could be wrong. Maybe the next time I'm on the phone with service I'll ask. Joseph N Hall 11:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables for lenses: any benefit?

Is there any benefit for the lens table over a simple list, except for "looking spiffy" in some peoples' opinion? In other words, would Canon EF 14 mm f/2.8L USM say everything that needs to be said? We should probably have an explanation of the terminology, of course.

As to lens names for articles: IMO, we should have a space between number and unit for millimeters, to follow Wikipedia convention (and we'll have the units freaks fixing it all the time if we decide otherwise) and we should use a lowercase f number in the name, not uppercase F or a ratio (e.g. 1:2.8). Canon uses the ratio on the lens itself but seems to use the lowercase f in text. In the article itself, I prefer using the italic f which can be sourced through the {{f/}} template, e.g. f/2.8.

There should be no space between the f-number and the 'L' designation, if present, following Canon's practice. Some sources make the 'L' red in running text; I don't think we need to bother, personally.

How do those guidelines sound? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I removed the tables from Canon FD, on my increasing belief that they added nothing other than spiffiness at the expense of actual information. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have explained this many times, in many places, and in many applications. Tabular data should be presented in tables. Cburnett 05:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But is it tabular data or is it a list? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Sealing

I think environmental sealing should be added to the table as most of the newer L series lenses have them. I added it to the table of the 70-200mm (for the 2.8 and 4 IS models), but it has a better fit here.