Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Mar 2012 (Thursday) 08:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What is the advantage of Canon EF-S lenses over EF?

 
Akukes
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Mar 2012
     
Mar 29, 2012 08:56 |  #1

I know EF-S lenses are designed for certain Canon cameras (XT up to 40D), but what is the advantage of them? I was originally made to understand that the EF-S lenses took into account the 1.6x crop factor so that the EF-S 17mm-85mm was indeed effectively a 17mm-85mm equivalent and not effectively 27mm-136mm. The more I read, the more I'm beginning to feel that this is not the case. If this is not the case, then why would I want an EF-S lens as opposed to the more widely compatible EF lenses?

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
NicuB
Member
82 posts
Joined Oct 2011
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:00 |  #2

Akukes wrote in post #14174322 (external link)
I know EF-S lenses are designed for certain Canon cameras (XT up to 40D), but what is the advantage of them? I was originally made to understand that the EF-S lenses took into account the 1.6x crop factor so that the EF-S 17mm-85mm was indeed effectively a 17mm-85mm equivalent and not effectively 27mm-136mm. The more I read, the more I'm beginning to feel that this is not the case. If this is not the case, then why would I want an EF-S lens as opposed to the more widely compatible EF lenses?
IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

cheaper to produce.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Echo ­ Johnson
Senior Member
Avatar
433 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: UK
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:07 as a reply to  @ NicuB's post |  #3

I think the sales pitch was something along the lines of "cheaper, smaller, lighter".


Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
...and other stuff.
Flickr (external link) | EchoJ.deviantART (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,600 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 673
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:12 as a reply to  @ NicuB's post |  #4

"Widely compatible" only matters if you plan to go full frame in the fairly near future. Otherwise I don't even see that as a consideration.

For the most part, EF-S lenses cost less than the equivalent EF lens, although the very cheap ones show that in noticeably lower build quality. Many of them are newer designs than the EF lens. EF-S lenses are designed for the smaller sensor, so a few are actually sharper on a crop body than the equivalent EF lens. They are typically smaller and lighter than the equivalent EF lens because they don't have to project an image on as large a sensor - the elements can be made smaller for the same aperture rating and focal length.

Many EF lenses are weather sealed. Particularly "L" lenses, and "L" lenses are all USM autofocus too, I believe. "L" lenses are significantly more expensive.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frugal
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Northern CA
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:12 as a reply to  @ NicuB's post |  #5

EF-S lenses have the rear lens closer to the sensor on a crop camera. That makes a lens less expensive to manufacture when compared to an equivalent quality EF lens. A lens stamped 17-85mm has an equivalent FIELD OF VIEW to a 27-136mm on a full frame camera


Richard
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,133 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6196
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:15 |  #6

Designed for crop cameras, meaning more bang for the buck. Imagine if there was a EF 17-55mm F2.8 IS. It would cost a boatload or if not, everyone would strive to get that lens.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
treck_dialect
Senior Member
Avatar
689 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: QC Philippines
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:20 |  #7

well not all ef-s lenses are that bad. for example, the 10-22 while not having a constant aperture or weather sealing is still the widest lens for a crop body. the optics are also pretty good. then the 17-55 is f/2.8 offers both IS and a low aperture on a prime. im not saying theyre better than L lenses but certainly not as bad as some people make them out to be.


well hello
http://aleccorpuz.word​press.com/ (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,254 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1531
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:23 |  #8

As has been mentioned above, its about cost. An Ef-S lens doesnt have to project as big an image circle because its for a smaller sensor. This allows for a smaller lens and its generally cheaper to produce than an equivalent lens for full frame.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,133 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6196
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:25 |  #9

treck_dialect wrote in post #14174423 (external link)
well not all ef-s lenses are that bad. for example, the 10-22 while not having a constant aperture or weather sealing is still the widest lens for a crop body. the optics are also pretty good. then the 17-55 is f/2.8 offers both IS and a low aperture on a prime. im not saying theyre better than L lenses but certainly not as bad as some people make them out to be.

I dont think anyone is saying they are bad. Just cheaper to produce since the sensor is smaller, the lens will generally be smaller as well.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canadave
Member
187 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: South Shore, Nova Scotia
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:37 |  #10

Akukes wrote in post #14174322 (external link)
I know EF-S lenses are designed for certain Canon cameras (XT up to 40D), but what is the advantage of them? I was originally made to understand that the EF-S lenses took into account the 1.6x crop factor so that the EF-S 17mm-85mm was indeed effectively a 17mm-85mm equivalent and not effectively 27mm-136mm. The more I read, the more I'm beginning to feel that this is not the case. If this is not the case, then why would I want an EF-S lens as opposed to the more widely compatible EF lenses?
IMAGE NOT FOUND
| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

As far as I am aware, the bolded part is not true.


Canon 60D
- EF-S 18-55mm
ƒ3.5-5.6 IS • Tamron AF 70-300mm ƒ4-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD • Pentax SMC-M 50mm ƒ1.4 (via adapter)

- Kenko Teleplus MC4 DG 2x teleconverter

- Manfrotto 055XPROB • Manfrotto 496RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Echo ­ Johnson
Senior Member
Avatar
433 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: UK
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:47 |  #11

canadave wrote in post #14174497 (external link)
As far as I am aware, the bolded part is not true.

And you'd be absolutely right.

Focal length if focal length is focal length is focal length. It's a physical property that does not depend on the medium you are using. i.e. it doesn't matter if you mount a (for example) 50mm lens on an EF-S, Nikon DX, full frame digital, 35mm film, Hasselblad 500c or Linhof, it will always be a 50mm lens.

Substitute "50mm" with whatever numbers you want.


Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
...and other stuff.
Flickr (external link) | EchoJ.deviantART (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CactusJuice
Senior Member
853 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Mar 29, 2012 09:51 |  #12

treck_dialect wrote in post #14174423 (external link)
well not all ef-s lenses are that bad. for example, the 10-22 while not having a constant aperture or weather sealing is still the widest lens for a crop body. the optics are also pretty good. then the 17-55 is f/2.8 offers both IS and a low aperture on a prime. im not saying theyre better than L lenses but certainly not as bad as some people make them out to be.

+1 to this. The 10-22mm is one of the best kept secrets out there.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HughR
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
     
Mar 29, 2012 10:09 |  #13

The EF-S 15-85 mm IS is another outstanding crop lens in terms of image quality. Build is not quite as good as an L lens, but still very good. There is no EF lens with a comparable focal length range: 17-40, 24-70 and 24-105 are the closest, but all three lack the 15mm wide angle, the 17-40 and 24-70 lack the 85mm telephoto reach, and they are generally more expensive. The EF lenses can be used on a full frame body, however. Those are the main differences.


Hugh
Canon 60D, Original Digital Rebel (2003)
EFS 15-85mm IS USM, EF 70-300mm IS USM, Tokina 11-16mm
Speedlite 430EX, Speedlite 430EX II,
Qbox 16 pro, Lastolite EZbox 24x24, Lumiquest Softbox III

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,162 posts
Likes: 1585
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
Mar 29, 2012 10:20 as a reply to  @ HughR's post |  #14

IMO THE ADVANTAGE IS....

IMO, the most notable advantage of EF-S lenses is the fact that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is available in EF-S configuration and there is nothing like it for full frame use. The Canon Gods decided in their omnipotent judgement not to equip the new 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark-II lens with IS. If they had, the full frame shooters of the world would have beaten a path to Canon's doors.

I would venture a guess that if the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens were built to EF "L" lens standards; it would be a lot bigger, heavier and a LOT more expensive.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melanopsin
Senior Member
278 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Mar 29, 2012 10:35 |  #15

Frugal wrote in post #14174396 (external link)
EF-S lenses have the rear lens closer to the sensor on a crop camera. [...]

I think that is incorrect. Both Canon APS-C and Canon FF EOS cameras have identical register distance.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,033 views & 0 likes for this thread
What is the advantage of Canon EF-S lenses over EF?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Andyloc
1134 guests, 224 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.