Get another S lens or EF lens for the future

[MaDProFF]

I have a 30D and need a wide angle lens, but I sort of resent spending hundreds on a lens that is an S mount, main reason being at some point in the future I will buy a full frame Body, and keep the 30D for sports and Telephotos ETC.

I need the wide angle lens, for scenic, and general picture taking was looking at EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.
Can someone please explain the difference in buying the above S lens or me buying an EF lens of the same focal lengths, I understand the 1.6 focal change, but is that s mount 17-55 subject to that change as well?
Also anyone used that S mount lens and thier views,
and can someone give me ideas of an EF alternative

Thanks

[lungdoc]

Short answer is that the suitable lenses for crop and FF in the wide-normal category are different. 24 is quite wide on FF, only ~38mm equivalent on a crop. If you are SURE about buying a FF body relatively near term then FF lenses like 17-40 or 24-70, 24-105 would be your best bet. If not sure then an EF-S lens like 17-55 (or 17-50 Tamron, 18-50 Sigma) is generally better on a crop especially if you want wide and 2.8, you could always sell the lens later as resale value is pretty good. The most direct answer is probably 17-40L as it's pretty decent range on a crop (though a little short) and a useful ultrawide on FF.

[ScottE]

A 17-55 lens is a 17-55 lens, regardless of whether it is EF-S or EF. The only difference is that the image circle of and EF-S lens is just big enough to cover the sensor of a digital camera while an EF lens has an image circle big enough to cover a 35 mm film.

My personal choice is to buy EF-S lenses for my digital camera, because I don't see any reason to ever go full frame for the type of photography I do. If I needed more resolution I would go digital medium format. In general an EF-S lens should give better performance than a similarly priced EF lens on and EF-S camera because the lens is designed to maximize performance over the actual sensor size and not compromised to provide sharpness in corners you cannot use.

[lungdoc]

A 17-55 lens is a 17-55 lens, regardless of whether it is EF-S or EF.

Well optically that is true, but a 17-55 on a crop for all intents andurposes behaves almost exactly like a 27-88 on FF. A "Normal lens" may be 30mm or so on a crop, 50mm on FF and 80mm on medium format. The lens may not change but the usefulness or role of the lens certainly does.

[ed rader]

I have a 30D and need a wide angle lens, but I sort of resent spending hundreds on a lens that is an S mount, main reason being at some point in the future I will buy a full frame Body, and keep the 30D for sports and Telephotos ETC.

I need the wide angle lens, for scenic, and general picture taking was looking at EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.
Can someone please explain the difference in buying the above S lens or me buying an EF lens of the same focal lengths, I understand the 1.6 focal change, but is that s mount 17-55 subject to that change as well?
Also anyone used that S mount lens and thier views,
and can someone give me ideas of an EF alternative

Thanks

if you are getting a FF camera i'd get the 17-40L. for the type of photography you've described f4 is plenty fast, and unlike an ef-s lens the 17-40L will work on any EF mount.

my widest lens on the 5d is the 24-70L, and as you know 24mm is wider on FF than 17mm is on a 1.6 crop (24mm vs. 27.2mm)

ed rader

[Wilt]

I have a 30D and need a wide angle lens, but I sort of resent spending hundreds on a lens that is an S mount, main reason being at some point in the future I will buy a full frame Body, and keep the 30D for sports and Telephotos ETC.

Look at it this way...APS-C is a different format camera from 35mm format. Normally you must buy lenses specific to a format camera. You don't normally expect to use your Nikon 35mm format lenses on a medium format camera, even though older Bronicas have Nikon lenses! And only in rare circumstances can you use the same lens on two different format bodies (e.g. some Pentax 67 lenses fit smaller format Pentax cameras)

You buy the best lenses for the format you have today. In the case of EF-S, they have some of the highest MTF ratings today, outperforming even some venerated L lenses, in terms of the lines-per-millimeter resolution specification -- because they do not have to fill as large a frame!

With Canon APS-C cameras, a few lenses (the EFS) fit only the APS-C camera. All the other lenses fit APS-C, APS-H, and FF bodies from Canon. NO other manufacturer even has bodies with frame sizes larger than APS-C! So consider yourself lucky with Canon, and don't avoid a lens merely because you hope to upgrade 'some day'. Lenses decline very little in value...so if you lose a few hundred, it is only like renting the same lens for a few weeks, in terms of cost. How long will it take you to save up the $2000 (over the cost of the APS-C you would sell) for that 5D?...or is 'some day' a long ways off, in reality?

[Tapeman]

The pricy 16-35 2.8L MKII would be my first choice, followed by the 17-40 4 L (a better value)

[ed rader]

Look at it this way...APS-C is a different format camera from 35mm format. Normally you must buy lenses specific to a format camera. You don't normally expect to use your Nikon 35mm format lenses on a medium format camera, even though older Bronicas have Nikon lenses! And only in rare circumstances can you use the same lens on two different format bodies (e.g. some Pentax 67 lenses fit smaller format Pentax cameras)

You buy the best lenses for the format you have today. In the case of EF-S, they have some of the highest MTF ratings today, outperforming even some venerated L lenses, in terms of the lines-per-millimeter resolution specification -- because they do not have to fill as large a frame!

With Canon APS-C cameras, a few lenses (the EFS) fit only the APS-C camera. All the other lenses fit APS-C, APS-H, and FF bodies from Canon. NO other manufacturer even has bodies with frame sizes larger than APS-C! So consider yourself lucky with Canon, and don't avoid a lens merely because you hope to upgrade 'some day'. Lenses decline very little in value...so if you lose a few hundred, it is only like renting the same lens for a few weeks, in terms of cost. How long will it take you to save up the $2000 (over the cost of the APS-C you would sell) for that 5D?...or is 'some day' a long ways off, in reality?

so you think given what the OP has said he's better off spending $1000 on the 17-55 rather than $600 for the 17-40L?

you think the pictures will be that much better -- especially for the uses the OP has described ("scenic, and general picture taking") -- to warrant spending almost twice as much for a lens he won't need some day ?

ed rader

[DerekI]

My serious question here is : how long Canon will continue the EF-S mount?

Will the 40D not be a 1.3 crop body camera?

Will rebels always be 1.6 crop cams or will they eventually become full frame cameras?

I hope the EF-S cameras won't be discontinued soon.

[Jon]

Well optically that is true, but a 17-55 on a crop for all intents andurposes behaves almost exactly like a 27-88 on FF. A "Normal lens" may be 30mm or so on a crop, 50mm on FF and 80mm on medium format. The lens may not change but the usefulness or role of the lens certainly does.
However that doesn't change depending on whether the lens is an EF or an EF-S. Optically, it's still a 17-55. And an EF 17-40 on the same body at the wide end will provide the exact coverage the 17-55 at 17 does. And that was OP's question. So any 17-55 or so lens, regardless of what format it's designed for, will work identically on OP's 30D.

[ed rader]

My serious question here is : how long Canon will continue the EF-S mount?

Will the 40D not be a 1.3 crop body camera?

Will rebels always be 1.6 crop cams or will they eventually become full frame cameras?

I hope the EF-S cameras won't be discontinued soon.


i think ef-s is here to stay but will be consigned to entry level gear....i think rebels will be 1.6 and one day soon at the top of the heap with a pricetag of $400.

the 40d and its successors is the one to keep an eye on. i think the 40d will be 1.6 crop but one day a successor will be 1.3 or FF.

i don't expect canon to follow the market. i expect them to lead :D !

ed rader

[Jon]

My serious question here is : how long Canon will continue the EF-S mount?

Will the 40D not be a 1.3 crop body camera?

Will rebels always be 1.6 crop cams or will they eventually become full frame cameras?

I hope the EF-S cameras won't be discontinued soon.
1) We don't know. But I doubt it.
2) We don't know (actually, we don't even know if there will be a 40D).
3) we don't know. But i doubt it (see 1)

[jklewer]

My serious question here is : how long Canon will continue the EF-S mount?

Will the 40D not be a 1.3 crop body camera?

Will rebels always be 1.6 crop cams or will they eventually become full frame cameras?

I hope the EF-S cameras won't be discontinued soon.

Ahh... a great mystery, you have stumbled upon.

[mikeivan]

so you think given what the OP has said he's better off spending $1000 on the 17-55 rather than $600 for the 17-40L?

you think the pictures will be that much better -- especially for the uses the OP has described ("scenic, and general picture taking") -- to warrant spending almost twice as much for a lens he won't need some day ?

ed rader

Short answer: Yes.

Short explanation:
17-40 f/4L; $670
17-55 f/2.8 IS;$1000
I paid $330 for IS and one stop faster with more reach, I am a happy camper. I agree with Wilt, buy for today, someday may never come. YMMV.

[Jon]

Short answer: Yes.

Short explanation:
17-40 f/4L; $1000
17-55 f/2.8 IS; $670

I paid $330 for IS and one stop faster with more reach, I am a happy camper. I agree with Wilt, buy for today, someday may never come. YMMV.
Except you seem to have mixed the prices . . .

[MaDProFF]

well I was thinking of these 2 lens

EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM costs new in UK £645-00

or

EF16-35mm f2.8L USM £1099-00

there is cash back atm on both, more on the more expensive one

Though I suppose I should have said I do have Some other lenses all ready, most noticable 28-105mm USM 1:3.5-4.5 though quite hold still not bad lens I think (though you lot might say it is crap :( )
I will certainly buy a FF as once the Mk3 comes out (not avail yet still here) quite a few 2nd hand cameras will come on the market, hopefully a EOS-1Ds Mark II seen some on ebay go for just over 2k now

I personally dont think 1.6 crop cameras are going away for quite a while, in fact, I am surprised canon not make a mid to top end one, as then everyone would have one of each, as many have stated when using a body for sports and long lenses it is an advantage I guess

Thanks for all your opinions

[august23]

you can't substitute anything for IS. the 16-35 doesnt have that. imo, it just doesnt get any better than the 17-55 in this range.

[ed rader]

you can't substitute anything for IS. the 16-35 doesnt have that. imo, it just doesnt get any better than the 17-55 in this range.

when you tried the 16-35 how was the bokeh compared to the 17-55?

ed rader

[ScottE]

when you tried the 16-35 how was the bokeh compared to the 17-55?

ed rader

You're grasping at straws Ed. The 17-55 is just a better lens for an EF-S camera.

[ed rader]

You're grasping at straws Ed. The 17-55 is just a better lens for an EF-S camera.

so you've tried the 16-35 too? august has flip-flopped quite a bit on the IQ of 17-55 and i wanted to see if he (or you) actually have experience with the 16-35 and if so how the bokeh compares.

i'm not grasping at straws....the 17-55 won't fit my camera and likely won't fit the next one i get :D .

ed rader

[mikeivan]

Except you seem to have mixed the prices . . .


OMG, you are right, at least I got the facts correct, I paid more for IS, one stop and more reach. I still think it is a good deal. Corrected my post, thanks.

[PetKal]

If you want what I'd consider the best WA zoom for your 30D, here are my recommendations, from the best onwards:
(1) 17-55 f/2.8 (The highest IQ +IS)
(2) 17-40 f/4 (The most cost effective lens)
(3) 16-35 f/2.8 (A great lens all around, a bit pricey though)

When you get an FF camera, you'd have two basic options:
(1)Ratain your 1.6 crop camera so your EF-S lenses will continue to work, or
(2)Trade your EF-S lens for an EF mount lens.

[ScottE]

so you've tried the 16-35 too? august has flip-flopped quite a bit on the IQ of 17-55 and i wanted to see if he (or you) actually have experience with the 16-35 and if so how the bokeh compares.

i'm not grasping at straws....the 17-55 won't fit my camera and likely won't fit the next one i get :D .

ed rader

No Ed, I have not compared the 16-35. I had the 20-35 f/2.8, but when I got a digital camera, the D60, I found that it was not wide enough. I was going to get a 16-35, but the clerk at my shop thought the 17-40 would be better lens for me. I wanted to use it for landscapes and usually stop down for depth of field, the price was better on the 17-40 and apparently the image quality is about the same. He thought the 40mm end would be more useful to me than 35 mm as a general purpose lens.

Until I got the 17-55, I was happy with the 17-40. I seldom use my 35 mm film cameras any more, but if I was going full frame I would be looking at the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200, all f/2.8. Unfortunately they don't have a nice triad like that for EF-S. The 10-22 is not f/2.8, the 17-55 is great, and there is no EF-S 55-165 f/2.8 IS. I keep hoping.

[Glenn NK]

May I suggest that "lungdoc" made a valuable comment that has become lost in the ensuing posts; namely that the Canon 17/55 EFS lens is so highly rated that it will maintain its value for a good number of years.

That is as long as all the existing and future 1.6 crop cameras don't suddenly disintegrate.;)

So buying one now (and taking care of it) will not result in a huge loss in value - but until the OP gets the mythical FF, it will provide him with excellent quality images for a long time.

Sometimes we concentrate a bit too much on the future and not enough on now.

[Wilt]

My serious question here is : how long Canon will continue the EF-S mount?

Will the 40D not be a 1.3 crop body camera?

Will rebels always be 1.6 crop cams or will they eventually become full frame cameras?

I hope the EF-S cameras won't be discontinued soon.

Look at it this way...about 50 years ago, someone asked,
"How long will this miniature format (what they used to call 35mm format) last? Will the Leica and the Nikon eventually become medium format cameras? I hope the 35mm cameras won't be discontinued too soon!" ;)

About 25 years later, someone asked, "How long will this 645 format last. Will the Mamiya and Bronica eventually become 6x7 format cameras? I hope the 645 cameras won't be discontinued soon."

And now we find ourselves with the discussion of the APS-C format dSLR!

[august23]

when you tried the 16-35 how was the bokeh compared to the 17-55?

ed rader

well i dont think ur grasping at straws, i can tell when ur being sarcastic and when ur asking a serious question.

so to answer it, the 16-35 had very nice bokeh, especially at 2.8. What it does have over the 17-55 again is that vivid color that the L's have, due to the flourite element the 17-55 lacks. Other than that, I really like the 17-55 better in just about every regard except build quality.

[ed rader]

well i dont think ur grasping at straws, i can tell when ur being sarcastic and when ur asking a serious question.

so to answer it, the 16-35 had very nice bokeh, especially at 2.8. What it does have over the 17-55 again is that vivid color that the L's have, due to the flourite element the 17-55 lacks. Other than that, I really like the 17-55 better in just about every regard except build quality.

so let me get this straight.

the 16-35 has better bokeh, better color and better build and what you like about the 17-55 is the range and IS?

ed rader

[thekid24]

i think ef-s is here to stay but will be consigned to entry level gear....i think rebels will be 1.6 and one day soon at the top of the heap with a pricetag of $400.

the 40d and its successors is the one to keep an eye on. i think the 40d will be 1.6 crop but one day a successor will be 1.3 or FF.

i don't expect canon to follow the market. i expect them to lead :D !

ed rader
Nicely put good sir

[august23]

so let me get this straight.

the 16-35 has better bokeh, better color and better build and what you like about the 17-55 is the range and IS?

ed rader

nononononono ed. i said it had nice bokeh, i didnt say it was nicer. @ 2.8 they're pretty much the same. the color is not better, it is different. i always said i prefered the natural color most lenses give over the L's. L's provide very vivid blues and greens and reds. if i want those, ill use a polarizer. what i like is the 17-55 is cheaper, sharper, has IS, a nicer range, and gives me that natural color.

[MaDProFF]

ok Many thanks,

I have taken on board, everything everyone has said,
long and short I will go for the S mount, it is a hard choice, but lets face it, an FF camera would be used in all situations over a 1.6 I guess for scenic, and portrait, in fact and close ups, well may be except for a macro use, I do have a EF-S 60mm, rather special that one for macro, so I will have to get another lens, at some point, when I do get a FF, but I will never sell the 30D, until a better 1.6 comes out, and if then, but maybe by the time I do ge ta FF, there will be better EF lens available.

[ScottE]

well i dont think ur grasping at straws, i can tell when ur being sarcastic and when ur asking a serious question.

so to answer it, the 16-35 had very nice bokeh, especially at 2.8. What it does have over the 17-55 again is that vivid color that the L's have, due to the flourite element the 17-55 lacks. Other than that, I really like the 17-55 better in just about every regard except build quality.

According to the Canon lens catalogue the 16-35 does not have any flourite elements. Both the 16-35 and 17-55 have 3 AL (aspherical) and 2 UD (ultra low dispersion) elements. Flourite is only used in some telephoto lenses. According to a Canon rep I talked to the only reason the 17-55 is not an L lens is that it has an EF-S mount and Canon is going to reserve the L designation for lenses that work with their professional cameras.

[DerekI]

Look at it this way...about 50 years ago, someone asked,
"How long will this miniature format (what they used to call 35mm format) last? Will the Leica and the Nikon eventually become medium format cameras? I hope the 35mm cameras won't be discontinued too soon!" ;)

About 25 years later, someone asked, "How long will this 645 format last. Will the Mamiya and Bronica eventually become 6x7 format cameras? I hope the 645 cameras won't be discontinued soon."

And now we find ourselves with the discussion of the APS-C format dSLR!

thanks for your great thought , and I did not know it was called miniature?

to me , the 35 is a huge format.

[Wilt]

thanks for your great thought , and I did not know it was called miniature?

to me , the 35 is a huge format.

16mm film cameras were 'subminiature'; 35mm film were 'miniature'. Compared to medium and large format.