What is the difference between Canon 85mm f/1.8 Series EF Telephoto Lens USM and Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens.
1476282
Very strange, but they have the same lens listed twice! I was wondering this too..but they're the same lens. Sorry for the late response!
1380193
The EF300 is a fixed focal length telephoto, the 70/300 is a zoom lens. The 300 is good for sports and wildlife. Be advised if you use a multiplier you loose the image stabilizer. Still a good entry lens.
2204553
It's both because it is a zoom lens. It's 2.8 capable when used at the 24mm setting and 4.0 when zoomed in using the 85mm aspect.
838886
I find the 85mm a bit faster in focusing *if* you're a fair amount of distance from your subject, as is intended with what's essentially a portrait lens. If you try to squeeze a macro shot out of it, the auto-focus just grinds back and forth trying to get a lock. That said, I have an older model 50mm 1.4 and never found the speed of focus (with a D3S and D800) to be outrageously slow, so take that into consideration with my answer.
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
1293200
Cannon makes 3+ levels of lenses. EFS, EF and L. The EFS is the entry level, the EF the avid photographer and the L the pro level lens. The difference is mostly the optics and build quality. The L series is built for more rigorous every day use and have ultra low dispersion elements that the entry and mid level do not have. Personal opinion, unless you are going to pound with this lens day in and day out, or you have a lot of spare cash, go with the EF. I bought the EF and have been very happy with it so far.
14700
The EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens and the 55-250mm IS lens are made by Canon, not the case for the Telephoto and wide-angle lenses. Still a great deal in my opinion. My wife and I love it.
1445078
It should work on any telephoto lens. I use it on the 70-200. The 85 f/1.2 would need a 77-72mm step-down adapter to fit. I don't have that lens, but I have another that I use with a step-down adapter. Canon makes a different close-up lens for shorter lenses, the 250D. Either would work on the 85.
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
1114923
The 17-85mm f/4-5.6 is usm lens doesn't have a special piece of glass inside it called "UD" which the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is usm does have. The wide angle difference between the two does really mean something once you consider the crop sensor multiplication factor of 1.6X, so the 15mm end equals 24mm in full frame, 35mm film camera terms. For many people who take snap shots of friends, places, and stuff, the 17-85mm is fine for their needs and can be purchased used on EBay for $200-$250. Keep in mind the 17-85mm isn't built quite as sturdy/durable (so I've learned from reading many reviews) as the newer 15-85mm lens is. If you don't need to print 8"x10" sized pictures for framing(or larger), then you should be happy with the 17-85mm is usm. I have both lenses now and will decide which one to keep within a few months of shooting pictures. Do a Google search on both lenses, there are plenty of reviews/comparisons on the two.
1580973
Michael, The one I got a few months back is the US warranty version. I have purchased quite a few Canon lenses on Amazon and they have all be US versions.
518359
Question doesn't say anything about usage of lens. 135 has the fastest focusing probably from all Canon EF lenses, it's sharp and produce shallow DOF. But it's fixed. The other two 24-70 and 24-104 are zooms = more versatile lenses. 24-70 is f2.8 what's advantage for focusing in a dark and produce shallower DOF than 24-105. 24-105 has extended range and IS. So if you need universal lens and you shoot a lot in dark conditions - 24-70 f2.8 If you travel a lot or you need longer end than 70mm and focusing speed isn't critical to you - 24-105 f4 If you need longer lens with fast focusing for concerts, headshoots, or you live in darker world - 135 f2 If your concern is technical quality you can't miss with any of them. Marian
1170784
I have the same dilemna. However, I am currently thinking that the 28-135mm is better suited on the basis that it is USM and therefore quicker to focus. I've had non-USM lenses before which tend to aimlessly go back and forth trying to focus when shooting in normal to low light. Since you have an APS-C rather than full frame camera, the 28-135 is equivalent to a 45mm-216mm which to me is enough zoom since I am not into sport photography. Hope this helps
1564566
Multiplying the 17-40mm EF L by 1.6x = 27-65mm equivalent focal length. ALL lenses will be multiplied by 1.6x on your camera, regardless of whether they are L glass or not, because you are not using a full frame (1x) camera. But if you EVER plan on getting a full frame camera, keep in mind the EF-S lenses will not work. Though they're pretty easy to unload on ebay.If you don't plan on getting a full frame, this is the way to go: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
462700
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The difference could pay for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - A quick lens is very versatile.
1797282
The lens has a switch between manual focus and auto focus. It has a sharp focus. It's is much better and faster focus than my Canon 85 mm f1.4. I love it. Not sure if I answered your question tho. It has IS and close focus (the 85 does not have either!)
1808647
The 72 mm filter will fit the canon EF 85 mm f1.2, but the EF 85 mm f1.8 lens takes a 58 mm filter