Canon Executive explains why 6D has only one X point

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15089527
If someone asked me what lens should I get, I would ask them how much they can afford, how serious they are about photography, what they plan on shooting. But if some can afford the 70-200 F4 IS over the EF-S 55-250 F4-5.6 then every time the sun comes up I would recommend the 70-200.

Well this instance is a no brainer, But what about a 17-40 vs 17-55 or 24-105 vs 15-85 question? In those instances there really is a bigger question as we're talking about lenses that are far more practical and capable for most instances... Theres very little reason to buy a 17-40 over the 17-55 (You lose a stop of speed, 15mm on the long end, and IS...Optically they're equal) and the 15-85 gives you a far better coverage for what the person is likely looking for (an all in one walkaround zoom) In both instances the only real difference is the build..

I can kinda see it on the 17-55, but the 15-85 has a good feel to it.. it certainly doesnt feel "junky" or anything... it feels pretty solid, and i gotta say my copy has held up very well (and i have a first run one)

-edit- and what about the 100L if we're talking about feel! That thing is one of the most controversial lenses I've seen in terms of feel!

correction, I noticed that you where talking about the 17-55 but I was checking out the wrong one. well if someone is asking me and using the-digital-picture.com as a reference I would recommend the 17-55 over the 17-40 unless they really need F4 but the fact that it's got IS can cancel that out. (depending on what your shooting of course) I think I would choose the 17-40 due to the way it handles the lines on the test. the EF-S lens seems to add extra colour between the black line and the white paper. but just on sharpness EF-S wins.

15-85 vs 24-105 that's a tough choice. for some 24 may not be wide enough but the 105 might give that extra reach where being 15 is wide enough but 85 may be to short. me the 24-105 is sharper in the middle but the 15-85 is sharper at the edges, I would put it down to what the person would need more, the 15 or the 105.

the 100 macro from what I can tell, it just seems shaper in the middle and that's the non L version for that. the L version of the macro lens is only slightly sharper and I don't think that IS and the L is worth that.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15089330
But one comment about being serious about the glass you stick on a body seems to made people think that I am some how automatic saying "EF-S are crap"

They aren't crap, like any lens if you learn how to use then you can get good results. If it's all that one can afford then there's nothing wrong with that, it's better to have glass attached to a camera that none at all.

In my option if your serious about something you get the best you can afford or are willing or able to spend.

I'm serious but realize some EF-S lens are better than EF lens

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15089527
Yea and? If you buying a lens and have the option of either L or EF-S wouldn't you get a L.

That depends entirely on the lens. 10-22 vs 17-40? I'd choose 10-22. 17-55 vs 17-40? I'd choose 17-55. 15-85 vs 24-105? I'd choose 15-85.

No argument there.

Both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are known to have lens creep, so...

EF-S lenses have USM too.

Ok, lets assume you were talking about the whole package. I'd still pick the 17-55 over the 17-40 and the 15-85 over the 24-105. Same goes for the 10-22 since it has no L equivalent on crop. And if I need a 60mm macro, you can bet I'll pick it over the 100L.

Well of course if you're going to be comparing one of the lowest-end EF-S lenses against one of the best L's

This EF vs EF-S debate is perplexing! EF lenses are designed for FF cameras and EF-S for cropped cameras comparing them particularly in a discussion about a FF camera is pointless they are designed to do different things. If the debate was about their use with cropped sensors it might have some value but a direct comparison is pointless. If Canon did actually design FF cameras to accept EF-S lenses you would still not be able to use the whole sensor thus limiting the usefulness of an EF-S lens. The simple fact is that if you move from a cropped body to a FF body you are going to need lenses designed for FF to get the best from the camera so the value of adding EF-S compatibility to a FF body would be more of a marketing ploy that any really advantage.

Neil

lots of info aside from the 'one X point' topic...

entertained

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15077772
this is never going to happen ever (would be my guess)

from wikipedia site regarding EF-S lenses (http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount)

it would seem that Canon has engineered the EF-S to never fit on a EF mount that's attached to a FF camera. Why they have done this is anyones guess but it's more than likely they didn't want to provide that kinda of function on a FF camera.

Has nothing to do with "not wanting to provide that kinda function", the article you quote yourself explains it, the mirror would hit the back of the lens.....not a particularly good idea. This also applies to the APS-H 1D series cameras....no EF-S lenses. 10D and earlier models are also excluded from being able to mount the EF-S lens.

I've read articles that some people have modified certain EF-S lenses to mount on cameras they were never intended to be used on. Apparently there are some instances where some of the lenses will work but I honestly don't recall with camera body/lens combo it was.

neilgcart wrote in post #15154476
This EF vs EF-S debate is perplexing! EF lenses are designed for FF cameras and EF-S for cropped cameras comparing them particularly in a discussion about a FF camera is pointless they are designed to do different things. If the debate was about their use with cropped sensors it might have some value but a direct comparison is pointless. If Canon did actually design FF cameras to accept EF-S lenses you would still not be able to use the whole sensor thus limiting the usefulness of an EF-S lens. The simple fact is that if you move from a cropped body to a FF body you are going to need lenses designed for FF to get the best from the camera so the value of adding EF-S compatibility to a FF body would be more of a marketing ploy that any really advantage.

Neil

EF mount lenses work well on ALL EOS camera bodies, Crop or FF. I've used a mixture of APS-H and APS-C bodies for years and to this day do not own one EF-S lens, nor will I ever. Having used a couple of EF-S lenses I saw no improvement in IQ that would make me want to now carry multiple lens combos to use between an APS-C camera and my APS-H 1D series bodies.

Sounds like there's beginning to be a misconception that EF mount lenses won't work or work poorly on crop body cameras.....not even remotely true

As stated, if we are discussing EF lenses vs EF-S on a crop body then it is a worth while debate and I am sure some EF-S lenses may work better on a cropped body than the nearest equivalent focal range EF lens and some EF lenses better than EF-S. But when it comes to a Full Frame camera you only have EF lenses to choose from and as EF-S lenses will never cover the whole of a FF sensor. Discussing the relative IQ of an EF-S lens vs EF in a thread that started on the merits of the 6D a FF camera is pointless as an EF-S lens is not designed to work with this camera regardless of the ability to mount the lens or not.

Neil

DennisW1 wrote in post #15154985
...the mirror would hit the back of the lens.....not a particularly good idea.

Happened to me once in a pub with a 5D2 and the mirror falling out. Happy fun times