--- Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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). If I remember correctly the 20-35/2.8L has an arc motor - the same used as in the 80-200/2.8L. I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for that statement, though. Robert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * 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? 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)
