> Check again. The last 20-35mm F2.8L was a USM lens. > > Peter K Canon Museum, PhotoNet, Photography Review, Photodo and Photozone all list only the 20-35 f2.8 L (non USM) and the 20-35 f3.5-4.5 USM (non L). I see the EOS Magazine site lists the 20-35 f2.8 L as USM, but since the introduction date is 10/89, which is the intro date of the non-USM, I assume that's a mistake. Kim * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Dave Buyens
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? John M. Lovda
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? John Pattenden
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Dan Honemann
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Thomas Bantel
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Bob Meyer
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kim
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Robert Meier
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Thomas Bantel
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Thomas Bantel
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Bob Sull
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? F�lix L�pez de Maturana
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? YEGEY
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
