Template talk:Canon EF lenses

Canon lens galore

Rather than truckloads of articles on canon lenses, would not a couple of detailed lists be enough? (for example one list for macro lenses, one for ultra wide angle, wide angle, normal etc etc). 130.232.144.221 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to concur. There isn't that much you can say about a lense that you couldn't in a list article. There is already a list on EF Mount. It's possible some lenses might be worth comment (i.e. 1200 mm f/5.6, 50 mm f/1.0) - but I think outside of that it's just going to be elements and groups. Megapixie 07:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so... I like how every class of lens has it's own article. Some of them have enough history to warrant an article by themselves imho. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 00:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Distorting Lenses"

All lenses distort the image, just in different ways. For instance, a "standard" rectilinear lens preserves straight lines but can only achieve that by distorting circles, while a fisheye lens preserves circles but must distort straight lines to do so. This category is poorly named and fisheye lenses should be in a category of their own. Some manufacturers have produced multiple soft focus/defocus lenses so I don't see why this can't also be a separate category. 121.45.203.191 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that tilt/shift lenses could equally be called "distorting". 121.45.203.191 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which category for the new Canon EF-M 28mm Macro lens?

Hi, I have add the new Canon EF-M 28mm Macro lens. Basically I have put it to EF-M primes and Macro lens. Is this a good idea, or should it only in one category? And if only in one, main question: in which one? --GodeNehler (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]