Because they are chronological, serial numbers usually do tell the approximate age of a Canon SLR or SLR lens, but Canon Inc. has never put out any sort of public info about it. However, there's another way to get the information: look inside the body's film chamber for an alphanumeric code printed in black ink on the black surface of the film chamber. You may have to hold the camera under a strong light to see it. What you'll see is a date code, possibly something like "U1140F."

The first letter tells the year the camera was manufactured: in this case, 1980. It's an alphabetic code; A = 1960, B = 1961,....T = 1979, U = 1980, and so on up to Z = 1985. The next 2 numbers tell you what month the camera was made, in this example, November. (the leading zero for the month code is sometimes omitted, so an A-1 with a code of "Y362" would have been manufactured in March, 1984, for instance.) The following 2 numbers are an internal code that is irrelevant for determining age, but year and month is close enough anyway, IMO. (This internal code is also occasionally omitted based on reports from Canon owners.) The last letter stands for the name of the factory. In this case, "F" stands for Fukushima which was the main Canon SLR factory for about 20 years from the early 70s until 1991. (The factory code is rarely omitted, if ever.)

Starting in 1986, the year code was restarted with "A" again, but the factory code was placed before it. Now that Canon SLRs are no longer manufactured at Fukushima, you're more likely to see a code starting with "O" for Oita. So, for SLRs manufactured in 1994, you might see a code starting with "OI" followed by the month code.

Incidentally, the same type of code is printed on the back of most EF lenses as well, typically in small white characters on a black baffle in the rear lens mount. Since Canon's SLR lens factory is in Utsonomiya, you might see a date code starting with "UG" for a lens manufactured in 1992, for example. Previous to 1986, though, the lens date codes did not include the factory letter.

From:             "Bob Turner" 
To:               
Subject:          Re: EOS Please Help a Poor, Pathetic Loser
Date sent:        Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:30:56 -0000
Send reply to:    eos@a1.nl

Jack Casner wrote:

> Where are the serial numbers on Canon lenses?  I cannot see the munbers on
a
> 28-105 or a 28-135.  My family is cursed with weak eyes and brains to
match.
>

Try here, http://www.kyphoto.com/eosage.html - it is a web page that allows you
to 'age' your lens or body and it shows the location of the serial number.

Bob Turner
Dundee, Scotland, U.K.
Website : www.bawbee.co.uk






From:             "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To:               eos@a1.nl
Date sent:        Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:41:06 +0100
Subject:          EOS date codes (was: EOS Please help a poor, pathetic loser
Send reply to:    eos@a1.nl

On 30 Nov 01 at 12:04, Tim Franklin wrote:

> on 30/11/01 10:36 am, Bob Turner at eos@a1.nl wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  
> > As Hugo Gaevert suggested I found the link at WJM's site and is
> > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_age.htm
> > 
> 
> I had a look at this. It appears to be identical (but without the pictures!)



In hindsight, many years after putting that article online, I think
the original was written by Bob Atkins. However, the name/title used
at http://www.kyphoto.com/eosage.html indicates a more direct copy
from me than I did from Bob Atkins (his article must have been
posted on this list or Usenet without any attributions or pointers to
the author, since I normally include all possible details/headers
with any article that is put online on my site....however, the 
article on his own site is also pretty anonymous, but that's probably 
because it's part of the FAQ-structure:
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/faq30/DATECODE.HTM

Or: if http://www.kyphoto.com/eosage.html had copied it from Bob
Atkins instead of me, they probably wouldn't have written
'(anonymous)' below the title (nor used nearly the same name/title
and file name).



--                 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]