What is the model of this Canon zoom lens?

<p>Hi I was wondering if someone could tell me what the model of this canon zoom lens is?<br>

I've had a look around but I can't actually find one that looks like this.<br>

Its obviously got quite a distance between the focus dial and the red ring, more perhaps than normal. Anyone know?<br>

Cheers</p>

 

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3302/screenshotvv.png

<p>My closest guess would be a Canon EF 20-35mm f2.8 L. Red ring out in front of the printing band, the design simplicity, the spacing of the two rings, and the finer size/spacing of the ridges of the outermost ring with respect to the inner most ring.</p>

<p>On second and third looks I do believe this is the one. If it is, it was two generations before the original 16-35/2.8 L. It went: 20-35/2.8 L, then 17-35/2.8 L, then 16-35/2.8L, and now 16-35/2.8 L II.</p>

<p>Check the Canon museum for reference.</p>

<p>P.S. Now that you have brought this up there seems to be no consistency to the placement of the red ring, even in new lenses.</p>

<p>P.S. #2 Where did you get this image and why the heck would you want to know? Why has the branding from the camera been removed?</p>

<p>Is this a real Canon camera? In the film days there were Canon branded film cameras on the market which sold for a few bucks, actually more than their value since it was all plastic rubbish. From memory I would say they looked like the one in the picture.</p>

<p>@John Crowe,<br>

I think you've nailed it, thanks very much for the detailed information too. </p>

<p>@Jos van Eekelen,<br>

It definitely is a real Canon :-)</p>

<p>As John says.<a href="http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm-f28.htm"> Link.</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>since it was all plastic rubbish</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I take it you incline more to the classic FD mount cameras, then. Except, of course for the T90, which is also "plastic rubbish"?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is this a real Canon camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's an EOS 1 or 1n. You're probably thinking of <a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/fake%20canon%20slr/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo8/_01-8.jpg">this heap of junk.</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're probably thinking of <a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/fake%20canon%20slr/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo8/_01-8.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this heap of junk.</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Jamie, at least it's got an optical lens in the shape of a round circle!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I take it you incline more to the classic FD mount cameras, then. Except, of course for the T90, which is also "plastic rubbish"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, as you well know, the T90 (as well as many of the better EOS bodies) has a metal chassis covered by plastic "skin."</p>

Mark nailed it. That's about the camera I had in mind, I remember one looking like the EOS1/1n series. The T series may

have been plastic, but at least a decent kind of plastic.

<p>Without question it's the EF 20-35/2.8L and the camera is a Canon EOS-1N. That shot is a scene from James Nachtwey's War Photographer documentary and in it he uses the previously mentioned Canon equipment.</p>

<p>I thought that was Nachtwey! That bandana seemed familiar.</p>

<cite>Why has the branding from the camera been removed?</cite>

 

<p>It's quite common to see brandless items in TV shows, or things such as patterns on T-shirts or commercial logos in the background blurred out. I'm guessing it's some combination of being unwilling to do what amounts to an unpaid product placement and concerns about rights to reproduce things like logos or other distinctive designs belonging to the product's manufacturer. Just a guess, though, from someone with no connection to the industry.</p>

<p>Considering Mr Nachtwey was a founding member of the VII Photo Agency, and they were heavily sponsored by Canon, I think the more likely explanation for his taping is the same one many conflict photographers tape their cameras, to reduce specular reflections from their gear to be less likely to attract snipers attentions. Many also tape sockets and covers for dust reasons, though obviously the pentaprism doesn't come into that!</p>

<p>I seem to have lost my copy of the video but I must be honest I thought he used 1VHS's in it, but having looked am my 1VHS's I realise I was wrong and Johnny was right, it is a 1N.</p>

<p>I agree with Johnny <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?q=EF+20-35/2.8L&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1440&bih=702&tbm=isch&tbnid=DwfD9HdYWQvjoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.lenstip.com/432-Canon_EF_20-35_mm_f_2.8L-lens_specifications.html&docid=Z7fgeRO4st8nqM&imgurl=http://www.lenstip.com/aparaty_image/1980_canon-ef%25252020-35.jpg&w=500&h=476&ei=5ayoT87sHcje0QGqk82rBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=321&vpy=145&dur=8455&hovh=219&hovw=230&tx=132&ty=94&sig=115530265372504094015&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=107&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:76">LINK </a></p>