Are EF-S Lenses a good investment?

<p>So I have a 550D for the moment, and I do indeed plan on owning a Full Frame body in the future, and there are a couple EF-S lenses that have caught my eye, but I don't know whether I should get them or not.<br>

Canon really should look up to Nikon's automatic cropping of their Full Frame cameras to allow the APS-C sized lenses to work on those bodies. That would make life much easier.<br>

By the way, the two lenses I have in mind are the 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br>

and the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM<br>

Suggestions?</p>

 

<p>Apart from the sort of collectibles that may uncrease in value, which are just like antiques, camera equipment is NOT, repeat <strong>not,</strong> an investment. It's an item of capital expenditure, which a business would depreciate from its purchase cost over a number of years corresponding to its expected lifetime. If you are an amateur (like me), base your purchase decision on the likely enjoyment you will get from using a piece of equipment, set against the difference between what you will pay for it and what you would get if you sold it. If the value you put on the enjoyment exceeds the value you attach to keeping your money in your pocket (assuming it is there in the first place), buy. Simple, really.</p>

<p>As to your specific queries. First, there are good reasons for using FF, and indeed good reasons for using a dual-format kit, but do they apply to you? The 550D is already a very good camera, the 7D an even better one. What would FF do for you that a 7D would not?</p>

<p>There's a very good reason why Canon prevent their EF-S lenses from being mounted on FF bodies. It's not because they would vignette, but because their design takes advantage of the smaller crop-factor mirror to allow them to project further back into the mirror box, where they would foul a FF mirror. Would you rather have the best lens possible for a 1.6-factor body, or a lens whose design is constrained by the extra requirement that it will fit a FF body too? If the former, buy Canon, if the latter, buy Nikon, the choice is yours. My vote goes to the Canon option, and I certainly don't want them to change it, even tho I use a dual-format kit.</p>

<p>As for the 60/2.8 macro and the 10~22, I have them both, and they are both excellent lenses, optically on a par with L-series lenses (indeed, the 10~22 can show the 17~40 on FF a thing or two) and built very nicely and certainly more than adequately for all but the toughest of use. So be reassured that they work really well. The question is, do they meet a need for you?</p>

<p>From what I read here in the forums, I think both of those lenses hold their value pretty well. Also, when you do go full frame, are you keeping the 550D as a backup?</p>

<p>I shoot both film (EOS 3,7e) and Digital (50D). The film equipment is my backup for now. The only lens that I own that won't work very well on my film is my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, but I don't worry much because if I ever get to go full frame digital, I would probably keep the 50D as a backup.</p>

 

<p>I shoot with 40D. I have only one EF S, 18-55 mm. All of the rest are EF lenses, that is because in two years may be I will have a FF camera. And that's fo sure. </p>

<p>Well thank you everyone for your responses! It's cleared things up for me, I think if I ever do get a FF camera, I will have a APS-C body along side it. It makes sense, and Robin Sibson, thanks that really made things clearer!</p>

<p>If you ever plan on upgrading to a full frame sensor camera, I would avoid the S series lenses. The only exception might be to get a wide angle EF-S.</p>

<p>If you only plan on using AP-S cameras, <strong>yes</strong>. </p>

<p>If you plan on moving to a FF camera, <strong>no</strong>.</p>

<p>I guess it depends on how far into the future you're planning on moving to full frame. I'm with Robin here. The primary value that a particular piece of photographic gear has is its <em>use value </em>for the particular photographer who owns it, and not its market value.</p>

<p>So if you're planning on a dual-format system, obviously don't worry about it. Get those EF-S lenses.</p>

<p>If you think that your move to full frame is a long way off, also don't hesitate to get those EF-S lenses. Just think of all the photographic opportunities you'll be missing in the meantime if you don't.</p>

<p>And if you're planning on moving to full frame very soon (and sticking to that format exclusively), you might want to pick up a 17-40/4 L and an EF macro instead of the EF-S lenses you're considering.</p>

<p>I personally wouldn't over-think it too much. If there is a FF equivalent and it is in your price range, get that; if there is not and the EF-S is more suited to you now, get that. You can sell lenses down the road if you need to, and they hold value pretty well. As Mark points out, no point missing photographic opportunities because you 'may' change sensor size down the road.</p>

<p>the good EF-S lenses hold their value well. The best way to not lose money is to buy used. If you buy used, then sell used in the future, the depreciation will be minimal and sometimes even increase. I bought a EF-S 10-22mm used for $560 and sold it 6 months later for $620. Now this isn't the case with every lens, but it does happen. Bottom line: buy the lens you need now, not the one you plan on needing in the future.</p>

<p>Whether you get a "full-frame"* camera or not, there can be no doubt now that the APS-C is a digital camera format that will persist for the foreseeable future.†</p>

<p>Therefore, there is little risk in getting an EF-S as there will be a market for them for a long time, and moreover, many people, like me, keep their APS-C cameras when they do get a 35mm sensor body.<br /> _______<br /> *more properly, I think, a "35mm-sensor"<br /> †see the 7D for an example.</p>

<p>If you are keen on wide-angles get the 10-20mm, super lens and holds its price. For the macro buy the standard 100mm one if you do intend going FF.</p>

<p>So you plan to move up to FF hey, allot of us have done that when the only "economical" FF digital camera available was the 5D. Then Nikon came out with one(which I really would not consider very economical) then came the Canon 5D Mark II which replaced the old 5D.<br />Then out of nowhere came the 7D which is a APS-C camera ! Now allot of us including myself are going full circle, hoping to purchase a 7D. Those who did not sell their APS-C lenses.<br />My advice to you is to try to buy lenses that will fit both formats unless it's absolutely neccessary. The 10-22mm is absolutely necessary if you want to shoot superwide angle on a cropped body. So is the 60mm macro, but not as neccessary as the 10-22mm. Another good APS-C candidate lens would be the 17-85mm which is a great walk-around lens because of its range.<br />You won't have any problems selling any of these lenses since most owners of Digital SLR's use cropped cameras. Stick with (FF) primes that will fill the holes in your system, for example an 85mm f1.8 is the equivalent of a 135mm on a cropped body. A 50mm f1.8 is the equivalent of an 85mm, a 35mm f2 is the equivalent of a 50mm and so on. When you get tired of doing the math, then you can switch to FF without losing on your investment.</p>

<p>With that being said, would you say the 10-22mm is better than the 17-40mm f/4 L ?</p>

<p>10mm is a LOT wider than the 17-40. They are not at all comparable. The one picks up virtually where the other leaves off. On the APS-C bodies, the 17mm is just a "regular" wide angle, not an ultrawide like the 10mm.</p>

<p>This question was way more valid before Canon released the 7D. All the bodies they made up till then were all advanced amateur bodies, and I think a lot of us felt like Canon was making the choice to stick with EF-S for a while when they introduced a semi-pro/pro body with an EF-S mount.</p>

<p>Different horses for different courses, though. I personally like the reduced apparent depth-of-field that an ultrawide gives on a 35mm format body, compared to a smaller format with the same angle-of-view.. which would be more apparent depth. So I'm choosing to buy lenses that are compatible with the EF mount. I use my ultrawides and wides on the 35mm format, and my teles and normals on the APS-C format.</p>

<p>I personally believe that EF-S will be around for a while, just like the APS-C and APS-H formats have stuck around since their introduction a decade ago.. or so..</p>

<p>+1 on Les Gibbons' response. I am going full frame soon, but shooting with the 7D now. The 10-22 is worth shooting ASP-C format in my opinion. Nothing else really is except maybe the 17-55 which I also own. Until Canon matches Nikon's 14-24 the 10-22 is the best rectilinear wide angle available and a thousand dollars cheaper than the next-best choice.<br>

And yeah, they hold their value.</p>

<p>I just purchased my first FF DSLR since my first Canon 10D! I too debated for a few years if "EF-S" lenes were a good purchase. Over the years I did indeed purchase these lenses and they proved to be great purchases for my crop DSLRs and produced great images. My current kit now includes all "EF" primes with my 5D as primary and 50D as back-up for shooting weddings, engagements and family shoots. As planned, I gave up my EF-S 17-55 2.8 with the intention to replace my back-up 50D with a 5DMkII in the near future and replace the 17-55 with a 70-200 f/2.8 (to facilitate my personal preference and shooting style) So don't hesitate for a second, I had no problem selling my crop lenses for close to full price and they served me well and got the job done. Have a plan, and just buy want you need for your photography now. Trade/ sell them later when (if) you decide to go FF later. Thats exactly what I did with no problems. Happy shooting! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>10mm is a LOT wider than the 17-40. They are not at all comparable.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, I think the relevant comparison here is between the 17~40 on FF and the 10~22 on 1.6-factor. I agree that it makes no sense to compare them both on 1.6-factor. But 10~22 on 1.6-factor gives the same range of angles of view as 16~35 on FF.</p>

<p>So how do these two scenarios compare? Even against the 7D, the 5DII has real advantages at high ISO, but if that is not a factor, and if we assume that there's no really material difference between the pixel counts, how does it look? A quick glance at the tests on PZ (with the 10~22 on the 50D) shows that the 10~22 has much less distortion at the wide end, which is where it really matters. The 10~22 has a better vignetting performance from f/5.6 onwards; wide open, the 17~40 is much worse at the wide end and sligtly better at the long end. Those comparisons are easy because they do not need to be interpreted in relation to pixel count. On MTF and CA, caution is needed, but as far as I can tell both lenses perform well in the centre but the 10~22 has much better corner performance than the 17~40 at the wide end, whereas it looks as if the 17~40 has better CA performance. If my interpretation of the PZ results is reasonable, then the 17~40 certainly does not shine overall, and if your emphasis is on good perfomance at the wide end across the frame then the 10~22 looks like the better bet. Remember that some aberrations are easy to correct in post-processing, but if the resolution is not there then it's not there, end of story.</p>

<p>I see no point in investing in any ef-s lens save the 10-22 as well, and honestly even that may not be for you.<br>

Go to a store and actually try out the 10-22mm and then try out the 17-40L. Unless you are doing something like real-estate photography or something where you need to get ridiculously wide, the 17-40L on an APS-C is more than likely wide enough. There is a wider aperture to be had on the widest end of the ef-s, but halfway though its back to f4 and then ends off w/ a f/4.5. The two lenses cost about the same, so if you really intend on going FF, you could buy the ef-s and sell it, or just not bother and get the 17-40L which will be probably wide enough for most of your needs, and the best part, it works on both FF and crop.<br>

All distortion and vignetting is easily fixed in lightroom, you just click develop, scroll down, and tell it which lens you used.</p>

<p>I picked up a couple of EOS film cameras recently, and wish I could just put on one an ef-s lens. I bought my first Canon in 2005 when the 20D was out, and figured I would have no need for anything full frame. </p>

<p>I feel just a little lucky now in that the only Ef-S lenses I have are the 18-55 which came on two bodies, and for some reason I bought the 18-55 IS when it first came out. I also bought the 10-20mm lens and really like it when I need really wide angle. Even at 1.6x the wide side is 16mm, and currently the widest FF lens I have is a 21mm Leica thread mount which I consider pretty wide.</p>

<p>So I would say choose your lenses wisely. Look at one of those sites which let you actually see what a scene looks like with a particular lens and body. As was said above the only EF-S lens you may need could be an extreme wide, but then maybe not.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>But Robin,<br /> the Op does <strong><em>not</em></strong> have a "FF" camera now, only an APS-C camera. While the two are obviously "comparable" on the different formats, they are not at all comparable <em>so long as the OP has the APS-C body</em>.<br>

<br /> Getting the 17-40mm, regardless of its optical merits or lack thereof, is a no-go if the OP wants any kind of wide angle while waiting around for the coming of Godot or the FF or whatever. That's the context of the post and of the thread - what to do now for functionality while maybe someday doing something else.</p>

<p>I'm going to have to disagree with you there, the 17-40L is considered an ultra wide angle, on top of the 1.6x, it will still "appear" to be wide angle. You can still get a significantly wider than normal perspective with that lens on a crop. I suggested that the OP to try out both lenses, but again, the 17-40 may suffice as a wide angle for the OP's needs, just not as an ultra wide.</p>

<p>OK, a 17mm "equivalent" on an APS-C camera of 27-8mm lens is a "wide angle," but not much of one by <em>current</em> standards. WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT APS-C, NOT 35mm SENSORS. No matter how <em>ultra</em> it may be on 35mm, it ain't much on the APS-C.</p>

<p>17mm would of course, if it could cover the field, be an incredibly ultra-ultra-ultra wide angle on a 6x6 cm camera like the Hasselblad, but that doesn't affect what we are talking about here and what the lens is on a 35mm sensor seems no more relevant to me. My loverly 105mm Leitmeyer f/6.8 lens is a nice wide angle on a 4x5", so what?<br /> "Wideness" is a <em>relative</em> dimension, depending on the format, not an <em>absolute</em> physical property of a lens.</p>

<p>27mm would have been considered incredibly wide on a SLR in 1956, of course. But last I looked, this is 2010. Standards also reflect what else is in the market.</p>

<p>That's why there are still wider lenses than the little 18mm kit lens, after all.</p>

<p>JDM, we're not disagreeing with one another. Yes, it makes no sense to compare the 10~22 and 17~40 on APS-C, since they do quite different jobs. Yes. the 17~40 is no longer a good choice on APS-C by comparison with the capabilities of lenses in the current EF-S lineup. Yes, I know the OP is interested in APS-C. But I'm not the first person to broaden the scope of a thread a bit, and there is a valid comparison to be made between 10~22 on APS-C and 17~40 on FF.</p>