EF or EF-S lenses for EOS 40D ?

I am thinking of getting the EOS 40D. This will be my first DSLR and lens

selection is really tripping me up. If I am not mistaken, the EF and EF-S

lenses will both work fully and autofocus on the 40D. But which is better. Are

there any pros/cons to using one versus the other. I found the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L

and read that it was a fine lens. Is there any reason that I should not use it

on my (soon to be) EOS 40D. What is confusing is the literature that says the

EF-S lenses were designed specifically for the EOS cameras. Not much is said

about the efficacy of using EF lenses on the EOS cameras. Simply that you are

able to. Is there something I am missing or can I use them both without any

drawbacks. Thanks for any info on compatability and this lens in general.

Dan,

 

The EF-S lenses were designed for use on Crop Bodies, specifically the 20D, 30D and now 40D. You can use EF lenses on crop bodies but you cannot use EF-S lenses on full frame bodies.

 

If you search the archives you can come up with a ton of opinions on the various lenses.

 

Good luck.

Actually, my original answer was a bit limited by only mentioning the 20-40D, I should have left it at crop bodies as that would have included the other crop bodies. You get the point...

Dan,

 

One reason you might not want it on your 40D would be because it doesn't go wide enough. 24-70 with the 40D's 1.6x crop sensor means the 35mm equivalent field of view is 38-112. I used a superzoom (Pana FZ5) which had 36mm as its widest focal length, and I did often wish for something wider.

 

I recently went through a similar exercise. In the end, I finally decided to go with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I gained a lot on the wide end (27mm is signficantly wider than 38mm), lost some on the short end, got better optics (look up photozone.de or slrgear's reports, you'll see), along with IS, and much less weight, but lost build quality. Furthermore, if I ever upgrade to a full frame body, I won't be able to use it.

 

It's often difficult to decide on which zoom to get. There's always a compromise to be made (or several). In this case, I felt the pros strongly outweighed the cons. (Actually, I was more leaning towards the 24-105 f/4 L IS when I decided on the 17-55 instead.)

 

Good luck!

 

Ken

Actually, some descriptions of the EF-S 17-55 IS suggest that it would be an L lens if it were not the cropped size mount. In any case, while some people expect to move "up" to full frame in a short time and won't touch the EF-S lenses, most of us expect that the APS-C (1.6X) sensor has a fairly long life ahead of it.

 

I have a couple of digital only (cropped size) lens and have never regretted it, especially at the wide end where there are no real alternatives (10mm lenses are neither common, nor commonly rectilinear).

 

Actually, the Sigma 10-20mm has a red dot to indicate mounting orientation, and it will in fact mount on a 35mm film EOS

camera with only some vignetting at the 10mm end that disappears entirely above 12mm (in the finder, that is, a little more would actually show up on the film, of course).

>>> Actually, my original answer was a bit limited by only mentioning the 20-40D, I should have left it at crop bodies as that would have included the other crop bodies. <<< (Eric Fournier)

 

 

I think this sentence is worse.

 

 

A small but important (reoccurring) point to clarify:

 

 

EF-S lenses fit cameras with an EF-S mount: it is the bayonet mounting which is the criterion: not the sensor format size.

 

 

Most, BUT NOT ALL, APS-C bodies (those termed `x1.6 crop`) have an EF-S mount, for example the 10D does not.

 

 

Also, APS-H bodies (sometimes `termed x1.3 crop`) do not accept EF-S mount. lenses (understood that the APS-H was not originally implied, but added here for clarity).

 

 

I think this is one of those times when pedantry is important, there are still many 10D`s around and whilst this thread is not specifically about a 10D, accuracy is important for other readers.

 

 

WW.

It's tempting because the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm lenses are both very good. But it would be nuts for me because I have a FF camera in addition to my 20D.

 

I'm certainly no soothsayer but I bet Canon will introduce a successor to the 5D in the not-too-distant future. If they do come out with a "5D Mark II" I bet you'll be able to pick up a perfectly good, used "5D Mark I" relatively cheap - and they really have excellent image quality.

 

I'd also expect that trend to continue; prices on things like CMOS chips almost always drop pretty much over time as newer, better fabrication procedures are developed. A PC with an Intel 486 processor was state of the art and cost a bundle in 1991 and hardly anyone could afford a few hundred megabytes of RAM, let alone a single gigabyte.

 

Anyway, prior to the 5D, I would've never thought Canon could introduce a FF camera at that price - and that price has dropped quite a bit, even for new ones.

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: Even if today you think you'll never own a camera with a FF sensor because of the cost, well... the price gap will narrow considerably between "cropped" and FF cameras and it's possible that EFS lenses may not hold their value.

 

Of course, I could be wrong. ;-)

Hi Dan,

 

In a nut shell...

 

Downside to EF-S: If you ever change to using full frame EOS D-SLR or continue to work with film EOS, EF-S lenses will not work on those cameras. Meanwhile, EF lenses will work on all EOS, film and D-SLR, no matter what format the camera uses.

 

Upside to EF-S: Lenses can be more compact and can offer ultra-wide angles of view that either simply aren't available in EF lenses or are more expensive for "wasted" full frame coverage.

 

There are both inexpensive/entry level and better quality EF-S lenses.

 

Take the 17-55/2.8 IS as an example. It could have an "L" series designation, but for the fact that by definition all L-series must be compatible with all EOS cameras. As an EF-S lens, it's not usable on 5D, 1D-series or any film EOS. (As a side note, EF-S lenses also cannot be used on 10D and earlier crop-frame D-SLRs).

 

The EF-S 60/2.8 Macro is another good example. It's said to be, essentially, a scaled down version of the well-respected EF 100/2.8 Macro.

 

40D can use both EF and EF-S lenses just fine. However, will the 40D be your last Canon camera body? I doubt it, but will the next one and the one after that also be APS-C/1.6X crop sensor cameras? If you invest in a lot of EF-S lenses and you ever change cameras that can no longer use them, will they be easily sold or swapped, without too much loss of your investment? It's anyone's guess.

 

As to lens selection... I'd suggest you look to what you have used a lot in the past, on full frame/film cameras. What are your favorite and most used focal lengths? Now divide those focal lengths by 1.6X and you'll have an approximation of what you will want to look for.

 

You may find some of your existing lenses will serve very well, but will likely identify some others you need purchase to get the "effective focal lengths" you want.

 

For example, if you use a 50mm and 85mm lens a lot in the past, you will find that you need a 32.5mm approx. lens to serve in place of the 50mm, but the 50mm can step up as a reasonably close "80mm" replacement for the 85mm, which in turn acts like a "136mm" on 1.6X cameras.

 

Now, you probably already know it, but lens focal length doesn't actually change. A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens. It just "acts differently", as a short telephoto instead of a normal lens on the 40D, due to the camera's smaller image sensor. In fact, this is just the opposite of a larger film format. On a 6x7cm medium format camera, for example, that same 50mm focal length would "act as" a very wide angle lens. Still a 50mm, though.

>>> If I am not mistaken, the EF and EF-S lenses will both work fully and auto focus on the 40D. <<<

 

 

Yes this is correct.

 

 

>>> But which is better. <<<

 

 

Depends on the application and the lens.

 

 

 

>>> Are there any pros/cons to using one versus the other. <<<

 

 

It seem to me that as the EF-S series is being developed, it is addressing the wider FL (eg EF-S 10 to 22) and an higher quality, fast and most used or favourite FL (EF-S 17 to 55 F2.8 IS) or a specialty lens that mimics the 135 format equivalent (EF-S 60mmF2.8 Macro)

 

 

So, IMO this lens series is developing for the APS-C format, more and more with discerning photography / photographer in mind.

 

 

As an example, the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8 IS is a most often used lens by Wedding Professionals who shoot in APS-C format.

 

 

 

 

>>> I found the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L and read that it was a fine lens. Is there any reason that I should not use it on my (soon to be) EOS 40D. <<<

 

 

This is a fine lens: an argument not to have it as the ONLY lens for use on a 40D would be it is not wide enough.

 

 

However a counter argument NOT to buy ANY EF-S lenses, is when the photographer wants complete lens integration in a kit with different format bodies, eg having a 40D and a 5D.

 

 

 

>>> What is confusing is the literature that says the EF-S lenses were designed specifically for the EOS cameras. <<<

 

 

I do not know what literature to which you refer, but EF-S lenses were developed to address the need for lenses specifically for the APS-C format: that is my opinion, and to me it is sound and reasonable, but I have not read any Canon documents outlining what their reasons were, but I would bet a beer that I am close to the mark.

 

 

 

WW

Dan, if you have the 40D I think it is O.K. to have one ef-s lens. My thinking is that IF you decide later to go full frame camera then you can always sell the 40D together WITH the ef-s lens, problem solved! In fact if you buy the 40D that is bundled with one of the ef-s lenses (either 18-55 IS or the 17-85 IS) you get a pretty decent value (much cheaper than to buy the body, then the lens separately). I am not saying that you should buy an ef-s lens over the EF lens, but merely to say that there is not much down-side to owning one.

Dan, 17-85 EFS its ok than 17-55 and buy tele 70-300 EF with IS for tele shoot, for the next choose 17-40L 50 f1.4, 70-200 4L IS, 85 and 60 EFS macro - if you have flexible budget buy series L lens because if one day you want up grade camera body to full frame Canon dslr, you already have compatibility equipment - best regard - don't forget about speedlite

Recently went thru a similar debate myself (24-70 Vs. 17 - 55) Eventually went for the 17-55.Boy! what a lens! (and ps: i upgraded from the tamron 17-50 of which i've never had a complaint about!)

Listen here, the 24-70L is a GREAT lens and if your considering upgrading camera bodies later on to say a 5D or 1D series, I would go with just an EF mount lens because if you get a EF-S mount, you will not be able to use it on cameras with a larger sensor..

I came into this post sorta late so lots of folks have already said some good stuff. So I won't bother. I just want to say hi to a fellow "HALL". :o)

 

Jason

Hi Jason!

Dan. You have the best answer regarding EF/EF-s lens/body compatibility. That's exactly what I needed to know and I found it here in this post. Thanks!