Talk:Canon EF lens mount

message: I think this text is not formulated like an advertisement. In fact this text right now helped me to understand some important technical details. I did not feel "advertized" or manipulated. Please consider to remove the "spam"-tag from this article. Deleting this article would be incredibly stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.153.218 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT Advertisement!!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lens articles by category? 

message: 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  template, e.g. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But is it tabular data or is it a list? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables for lenses: any benefit? 

message: 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.
I'm a little concerned with the reference to the EF as a bayonet style connection. Although technically speaking they are a bayonet slide lock. they are never regarded as such. Only FD lens are called breech lock or bayonet style, with the obvious hook in attachments. Also note that not All EF lenses are EOS compatible, they may attach to an EOS system but there is a laundry list of lenses old and new with the EF EOS attachment that are not compatible with today's digital cameras, this is especially true with the first generations of EF lenses.
:You have bayonet vs. breech misunderstood.  FD was a breech mount.  EF, like the vast majority of lens mounts in the modern era, is a bayonet.
:Since EF is the lens mount of the EOS system, all EF lenses are EOS compatible.  However, it's true that some lenses have been incompatible with some cameras, although to my memory this has been largely third-party lenses with reverse-engineered protocols. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Sealing 

message: That chapter bandies the terms diffractive and refractive about but doesn't tell me the blooming difference to normal lenses.  Someone in the know please do a rewrite!
BTW Canon explains diffractive here:  http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2632 Maikel 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Refractive is what normal glass lenses are. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diffractive optics 

message: Maybe someone can talk here about that monster:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-5200mm-F14-lens_W0QQitemZ180294096815QQihZ008QQcategoryZ3323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
i don't write quite well in english. --Wikit2007 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive lens, but too bad it's not an EF mount :( Nebrot (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  5200 F14 prime lens 

message: I read in an Amazon review that EF-S lenses (such as the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens) are not compatible with Canon's "high-end Full Frame cameras". If someone knows the details of this (I don't) it would be very helpful to the article to state it in the introduction. Which High End cameras? does this include the EOS5D? And so on. Praqctically, that would be very useful information for someone thinking of shelling our six hundred quid on a lens, who aspires to upgrade to a full frame camera at some point in the future. Like me! 
Thanks ElectricRay (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ElectricRay, EF-S lenses such as the Canon EF-S 17-55mm lens are not compatible with Full-frame digital SLR and 135_film cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II or Canon EOS-3. They only work with Canon EF-S lens mount type cameras. However, EF mount lenses will work with any type of Canon EOS SLR. Hence why this is not discussed in this article, but most extensively in the EF-S article. Hope that clears things up. Nebrot (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks - that does. I had done some more research and reached that conclusion. However, I have now added that fact to the introduction of this article precisely because people like me might not know there's a difference between EF and EF-S at all.ElectricRay (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Frame compatibility

message: I have added this table, I was looking for something like this and I haven't found anything, that's why I decided to make one myself. I hope you find it useful. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia (beside some minor adjustments) so it could have been better. Feel free to tweak it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radustoicescu (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon EF Mount prime lenses timeline

message: The width of a lens mount does not have an effect on the maximum aperture. Canon briefly introduced an f/1.0 lens that was expensive, large and soft and then replaced it with an f/1.2. Nikon currently make an f/1.2 manual lens which is bad and have in the past made the legendary NOCT f/1.2.
While the Canon PR dept likes to claim that Nikon can't match the speed of their lenses due to the mount constraint, the fact is that excluding a dud lens that appears to have had little point other than marketing, they already have. It is not so long since Canon PR was telling the world that the F-mount cannot support full frame format, which is a little stupid since they have supported full frame since 1958 - thats what we used to use in the film days.
Without a reference to an independent authority on lens design, the claim that the mount size is superior is B/S. The maximum aperture is determined by the optics at the front end of the lens. By the time that the light has reached the mount it had better be pretty close to the sensor area it is intended to hit or it is going to have to take a very sharp turn which is going to require a much larger radius of curvature than is going to fit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.39.121 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets skip the Canon marketing FUD 

message: Canon's documents shows pins 2 and 3 as being P-GND.  68.6.66.28, do you have a citation for pin 2 being used as a lens present indicator?  The large size of the contact would imply to me that it is a grounding one, and that the normal sized pin 3 might be for signaling.  However, the citations do not support that. -- Autopilot (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lens present? 

message: This section is a bit messy with uncited statements or opinion on the 28-300mm (most reviews and individuals say that image quality is, for example, "on a very high if not exceptional level") and the wording and grammar need a little tidying. The statement on EF-S requires some slight further explanation as although the article does mention the difference, many folk would not read it all or go to the separate EF-S article. I will edit these things. JohnB57 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  L Series 

message: Three last notes (16.-18.) seem to have broken links, they reference PDF documents, but redirect to some russian forum instead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.240.134 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: The table lists the EF 24mm f/2.8 and EF 28mm f/2.8 as having Image Stabilization, but this doesn't appear to be true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbprime (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IS on 24/28? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canon EF lens mount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310004805/http://www.canon.com.my:80/section/customercare/proservice.jsp to http://www.canon.com.my/section/customercare/proservice.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a EF Cine mount and how is it different to the "normal" EF mount? TIA.--95.91.15.75 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my knowledge, the EF Cine is a "normal" EF mount, only connected to Cinema video cameras. The idea is to use the big amount of existing lenses also for the Cinema video cameras, as the "normal" cinema lenses (from manufactures like Zeiss, Arri, Schneider Kreuznach and similar) are very expensive. The "normal" EF lenses might not have the quality or the features like original cinema lenses, but big verities are available. On top, Canon produces special Cinema lenses, which are available with PL and EF mount which are in the same price range like Arri and ZEISS. As far as I know, they don't have autofocus and manual Aperture control via separate ring at the lens (same as all other manufactures). --GodeNehler (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  EF Cine? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Canon EF lens mount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/652UVE2Fg?url=http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html to http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/652UYVPYX?url=http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/f_index.html to http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/f_index.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/652UZUvZZ?url=http://www.canon.com/notice/closed-page.html to http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos/system/ef_lens_system-e.html
*Added  tag to http://www.ozerki.net/photosight/PhotoDocs/Manuals/partlist/Lens/Extender%20EF%201.4x.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ozerki.net/photosight/PhotoDocs/Manuals/partlist/Lens/Extender%20EF%202x.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ozerki.net/photosight/PhotoDocs/Manuals/partlist/Lens/Life%20Size%20Converter%20EF.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When did the first 3rd party lens occur? Did Canon sue the manufacturer over this?--2A02:810A:1E40:A14:1826:696D:92DD:D906 (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of 3rd party lenses 

message: This reads like an instruction manual, and many of the features and controls listed are universal to any manufacturer's AF (or even MF) lenses, or are not unique to EF lenses. Okto8 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article really need a whole section on the controls and parts of EF lenses?