http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<[/ref][/ref][/ref] ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ [allowsmilie] => 1 [showsignature] => 0 [ipaddress] => [iconid] => 0 [visible] => 1 [attach] => 0 [infraction] => 0 [reportthreadid] => 0 [isusenetpost] => 1 [msgid] => [ref] => [htmlstate] => on_nl2br [postusername] => Stephen [ip] => stephen@stevedu [isdeleted] => 0 [usergroupid] => [membergroupids] => [displaygroupid] => [password] => [passworddate] => [email] => [styleid] => [parentemail] => [homepage] => [icq] => [aim] => [yahoo] => [msn] => [skype] => [showvbcode] => [showbirthday] => [usertitle] => [customtitle] => [joindate] => [daysprune] => [lastvisit] => [lastactivity] => [lastpost] => [lastpostid] => [posts] => [reputation] => [reputationlevelid] => [timezoneoffset] => [pmpopup] => [avatarid] => [avatarrevision] => [profilepicrevision] => [sigpicrevision] => [options] => [akvbghsfs_optionsfield] => [birthday] => [birthday_search] => [maxposts] => [startofweek] => [referrerid] => [languageid] => [emailstamp] => [threadedmode] => [autosubscribe] => [pmtotal] => [pmunread] => [salt] => [ipoints] => [infractions] => [warnings] => [infractiongroupids] => [infractiongroupid] => [adminoptions] => [profilevisits] => [friendcount] => [friendreqcount] => [vmunreadcount] => [vmmoderatedcount] => [socgroupinvitecount] => [socgroupreqcount] => [pcunreadcount] => [pcmoderatedcount] => [gmmoderatedcount] => [assetposthash] => [fbuserid] => [fbjoindate] => [fbname] => [logintype] => [fbaccesstoken] => [newrepcount] => [vbseo_likes_in] => [vbseo_likes_out] => [vbseo_likes_unread] => [temp] => [field1] => [field2] => [field3] => [field4] => [field5] => [subfolders] => [pmfolders] => [buddylist] => [ignorelist] => [signature] => [searchprefs] => [rank] => [icontitle] => [iconpath] => [avatarpath] => [hascustomavatar] => 0 [avatardateline] => [avwidth] => [avheight] => [edit_userid] => [edit_username] => [edit_dateline] => [edit_reason] => [hashistory] => [pagetext_html] => [hasimages] => [signatureparsed] => [sighasimages] => [sigpic] => [sigpicdateline] => [sigpicwidth] => [sigpicheight] => [postcount] => 11 [islastshown] => 1 [isfirstshown] => [attachments] => [allattachments] => ) --> Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III - Photography

Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III - Photography

Hey all, I had a question about the Canon lenses. I've been scouring ebay watching for some deals to come up, and I'm starting to see a lot of lens x II, III and USM. I know what USM is and what it's supposed to do, but does it really make that much of a difference? My friend owns a Nikon with a high end wide / macro lens and the auto focus is extremely quick. Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption they are later generation, are II and III USM as well? ...

  1. #1

    Default Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    Hey all, I had a question about the Canon lenses.
    I've been scouring ebay watching for some deals to come up, and I'm
    starting to see a lot of lens x II, III and USM.
    I know what USM is and what it's supposed to do, but does it really make
    that much of a difference?
    My friend owns a Nikon with a high end wide / macro lens and the auto
    focus is extremely quick.

    Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption
    they are later generation, are II and III USM as well?

    Thanks

    Nighthawk Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    The only heads up would be the 75-300, there are USM, USM IS and non-USM
    versions of this lens, with ver.II in USM and non USM iterations.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    [url]www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]
    "Victor Bazarov" <v.AbazarovattAbi.com> wrote in message
    news:vh8b5kijoiol42corp.supernews.com...
    > "Nighthawk" <nighthawknospam.net> wrote...
    > > Victor Bazarov wrote:
    > > > "Nighthawk" <nighthawknospam.net> wrote...
    > > >
    > > >>[...]
    > > >>Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption
    > > >>they are later generation, are II and III USM as well?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > If the first version is USM, others are also USM. II and III
    > > > are just version designators. Improvements are made to machines
    > > > all the time. Seals are made more sealing, electronics - less
    > > > consuming, mechanics - stronger, materials replaced with cheaper
    > > > ones...
    > > >
    > >
    > > So there can be II and III non USM lenses?
    > > Thanks for the feedback.
    > >
    >
    > Of course. E.g. 50/1.8 II is a non-USM lens. Metal mount
    > was replaced with a plastic one. Improvement (in weight) :-)
    > But the original lens is non-USM, as well.
    >
    > Victor
    >
    >

    Skip Middleton Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    > I know what USM is and what it's supposed to do, but does it really make
    > that much of a difference?
    USM is FAST! I never bought anything else when I had my Canon SLR... I
    tested several non-USM lenses but found them to be too slow to focus...
    > Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption
    > they are later generation, are II and III USM as well?
    As far as I noted, no lens ever gained or lost USM between generations. The
    lens-design whould be radically different, and so a new lens would have to
    be designed (and that's not a new generation)...


    Snorre Selmer Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    Actually, IIRC, there was a difference in blade count in the iris.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    [url]www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]
    "Jim Townsend" <notreal.address> wrote in message
    news:vh8sisktp3glbcnews.supernews.com...
    > Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >
    > > Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption
    > > they are later generation, are II and III USM as well?
    >
    > The only reference to the Roman numeral generations I've seen is on
    Canon's
    > museum web site.
    >
    > They show an AF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM lens and an AF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II
    USM
    > model. (I own a II model.. Not a bad bit of glass for the price :-)
    >
    > The II is listed as optically and mechanically the same, but with cosmetic
    > differences to the exterior. I imagine this holds true with most of the
    EF
    > lineup.
    >
    >
    [url]http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_28~105_35~45v2_usm[/url]
    ..html
    >
    >

    Skip Middleton Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    "Nighthawk" <nighthawknospam.net> wrote in message
    news:ZRVQa.41908$PD3.266198nnrp1.uunet.ca...
    >
    > So there can be II and III non USM lenses?
    > Thanks for the feedback.
    >
    Yes, take for example the 28-80mm f/3.8-5.6, it comes in the following
    versions

    28-80mm f/3.8-5.6 USM
    28-80mm f/3.8-5.6 USM II
    possibly 28-80mm f/3.8-5.6 USM III

    28-80mm f/3.8-5.6
    28-80mm f/3.8-5.6 II
    28-80mm f/3.8-5.6 III
    28-80mm f/3.8-5.6 IV
    28-80mm f/3.8-5.6 V


    Tony Parkinson Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    Eh? You mean that some autofocus don't actually rotate?
    Are these switchable to manual focus?
    And do the L lenses need a different mount on the body?

    Please pardon all these questions, I'm still getting used to this stuff.

    Skip Middleton wrote:
    > USM is not only faster, it is quieter than non USM versions. How much so
    > depends on (you're going to love this!) which version of USM the lens is.
    > Some, like the "L" lenses, the 28-135, 100-300 and others, are "ring" USM,
    > which means they have a true Ultrasonic Motor, which gives them the fastest
    > and quietest AF, non rotating front elements and full time manual focusing.
    > The other form of USM is "micromotor" USM which has a traditional motor
    > which is incrementally slower and noisier than ring, has a rotating front
    > element (a pain with filters that have an orientation, like polarizers) and,
    > with the exception of the 50mm f1.4, have to be switched between AF and MF.
    > By the way, wide lenses, and normal focal length lenses, tend to be quick at
    > AF, no matter what the form they take, less glass to move smaller distances.
    >
    > --
    > Skip Middleton
    > [url]www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]
    > "Nighthawk" <nighthawknospam.net> wrote in message
    > news:BhUQa.41850$PD3.265332nnrp1.uunet.ca...
    >
    >>Hey all, I had a question about the Canon lenses.
    >>I've been scouring ebay watching for some deals to come up, and I'm
    >>starting to see a lot of lens x II, III and USM.
    >>I know what USM is and what it's supposed to do, but does it really make
    >>that much of a difference?
    >>My friend owns a Nikon with a high end wide / macro lens and the auto
    >>focus is extremely quick.
    >>
    >>Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption
    >>they are later generation, are II and III USM as well?
    >>
    >>Thanks
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    Nighthawk Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    Thanks for all the quick answers guy/gals, I think I'm beginning to
    understand, I think I may have to take a trip to the camera shop and
    test out a USM lens to see how fast the difference is.

    Last question....I swear...does USM use more battery power?

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > Hey all, I had a question about the Canon lenses.
    > I've been scouring ebay watching for some deals to come up, and I'm
    > starting to see a lot of lens x II, III and USM.
    > I know what USM is and what it's supposed to do, but does it really make
    > that much of a difference?
    > My friend owns a Nikon with a high end wide / macro lens and the auto
    > focus is extremely quick.
    >
    > Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption
    > they are later generation, are II and III USM as well?
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    Terry Grady Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    "Terry Grady" <terrymycompaniesdomain.com> wrote in message
    news:C9bRa.42268$PD3.274344nnrp1.uunet.ca...
    > Thanks for all the quick answers guy/gals, I think I'm beginning to
    > understand, I think I may have to take a trip to the camera shop and
    > test out a USM lens to see how fast the difference is.
    >
    > Last question....I swear...does USM use more battery power?
    >
    More battery power than what ?

    non-USM Canon AF lenses ? probably not

    other manufacturers AF ? probably not

    MF lenses ? probably


    Tony Parkinson Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    "Nighthawk" <nighthawknospam.net> wrote...
    > Eh? You mean that some autofocus don't actually rotate?
    Most don't. Only very low-end ones do.
    > Are these switchable to manual focus?
    All are. Do you have an example of non-switchable one? The
    advantage of full-time manual is that after the autofocus has
    be acquired, you may still correct it manually. Of non-USM
    lenses only 50/1.4 has that ability, IIRC.
    > And do the L lenses need a different mount on the body?
    They probably need a better body :-) Joke aside, no, the same
    mount.
    >
    > Please pardon all these questions, I'm still getting used to this stuff.
    >
    > Skip Middleton wrote:
    > > USM is not only faster, it is quieter than non USM versions. How much
    so
    > > depends on (you're going to love this!) which version of USM the lens
    is.
    > > Some, like the "L" lenses, the 28-135, 100-300 and others, are "ring"
    USM,
    > > which means they have a true Ultrasonic Motor, which gives them the
    fastest
    > > and quietest AF, non rotating front elements and full time manual
    focusing.
    > > The other form of USM is "micromotor" USM which has a traditional motor
    > > which is incrementally slower and noisier than ring, has a rotating
    front
    > > element (a pain with filters that have an orientation, like polarizers)
    and,
    > > with the exception of the 50mm f1.4, have to be switched between AF and
    MF.
    > > By the way, wide lenses, and normal focal length lenses, tend to be
    quick at
    > > AF, no matter what the form they take, less glass to move smaller
    distances.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Skip Middleton
    > > [url]www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]
    > > "Nighthawk" <nighthawknospam.net> wrote in message
    > > news:BhUQa.41850$PD3.265332nnrp1.uunet.ca...
    > >
    > >>Hey all, I had a question about the Canon lenses.
    > >>I've been scouring ebay watching for some deals to come up, and I'm
    > >>starting to see a lot of lens x II, III and USM.
    > >>I know what USM is and what it's supposed to do, but does it really make
    > >>that much of a difference?
    > >>My friend owns a Nikon with a high end wide / macro lens and the auto
    > >>focus is extremely quick.
    > >>
    > >>Secondly, what's up with the II and III lenses? I'm on the assumption
    > >>they are later generation, are II and III USM as well?
    > >>
    > >>Thanks
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >

    Victor Bazarov Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    "Terry Grady" <terrymycompaniesdomain.com> wrote...
    > Thanks for all the quick answers guy/gals, I think I'm beginning to
    > understand, I think I may have to take a trip to the camera shop and
    > test out a USM lens to see how fast the difference is.
    >
    > Last question....I swear...does USM use more battery power?
    There is nothing that would indicate that.

    Victor


    Victor Bazarov Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Canon lenses USM, normal, II, III

    In article <supernews.com> "Victor Bazarov" <com> writes:
    $"Nighthawk" <net> wrote...
    $> Eh? You mean that some autofocus don't actually rotate?
    $
    $Most don't. Only very low-end ones do.

    Many of Canon's lenses move only internal elements when focusing;
    the front elements and the front of the barrel don't move. Some others
    move the front elements in and out but don't rotate them. Generally,
    it's the cheaper, lower-end lenses that have rotating front elements.

    $> Are these switchable to manual focus?
    $
    $All are. Do you have an example of non-switchable one?

    Not in the current lineup, but there were a few lenses in the
    early years of the EOS system which were autofocus-only; they
    lacked a focus ring. These lenses have an A in their names
    (e.g. EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A).

    $ The
    $advantage of full-time manual is that after the autofocus has
    $be acquired, you may still correct it manually. Of non-USM
    $lenses only 50/1.4 has that ability, IIRC.

    The 50/1.4 is a USM lens. What you're thinking of is ring
    USM. For the most part, ring USM lenses have FT-M, and micro USM
    lenses don't. The 50/1.4 is unusual in that it has FT-M even
    though it uses micro USM.
    --
    Stephen M. Dunn <ca> [/ref][/ref]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
    Stephen Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Canon EF Lenses Recommendations?
    By Rob Wild in forum Photography
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 21st, 05:43 AM
  2. Do Canon EF lenses come with a hood and pouch?
    By Andrey Tarasevich in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 18th, 06:47 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 01:56 PM
  4. Question on currency of some Canon EF lenses
    By Alan F Cross in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 12th, 07:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •