EF vs EF-S

<p>I'm looking to buy at least two new lenses for my EOS 40D. I know that the EF-S lenses are designed for the reduced frame size. However, what is the effect of using the EF lenses on the 40D?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Check this out:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor</a></p>

<p>the crop factor affects the EF-S lenses as well.<br>

The main difference is that since the EF-S lenses (in general) have a reduced image circle, they can be made smaller & cheaper.<br>

The 3rd party lens makers also make some reduced image circle lenses that don't use the ef-s mount. But if you use them on a full-frame camera you get severe vignetting.<br>

If you want an ultrawide (10-22mm) or thereabouts you are pretty much going to be getting a reduced image circle lens of some sort.</p>

 

<p>Canon makes some very good quality EF-S lenses. Any EF lens will work on APC sensor cameras (40D). EF-S lenses will ONLY work on APC bodies. If you are considering going full frame in the future, EF glass can be carried over.</p>

<p>I have had digital 1.6 crop factor bodies since 2002. I have stayed away from EF-s lenses because I knew ultimately I would go to full frame which I did awhile ago and all my lenses are useful. Because I kept a 1.6 crop XTi and wanted something very light weight(I get tired of dragging 3 pound L lenses around) I bought an EF-s 18-55 to go on the XTi that I kept. I used a Canon 17-40 f4L on 1.6 crop bodies for sometime. I gave me 28-62 effective focal length. I made lots of nice pictures with that combination. So if you ever want to go to full frame I would stay away, mostly, from EF-s lenses. It worked for me. </p>

<p>EF-S lenses can be made smaller, less expensive, and often sharper than EF equivalents. You can also make some great lenses that are challenging to make for EF mounts. I really like the look of the Tamron 60mm f2 macro. I love my Tokina 50-135 2.8 (80-216 equivalent). I would much rather run around with a Sigma 50-150 2.8 than a Canon 70-200 2.8. The Tamron 17-50 (non VC) and the Canon 17-55 are both sharper and faster than the EF 17-40. </p>

<p>I like EF-S lenses a lot. If you get the right ones you can do very well for not a lot of money.</p>

<p>Find what focal lenght, aperture etc you desire or can afford and go with it. Don't worry to much about it being EF or EF-S. I tried to say away from ef-s but I found out ultimately you will probably need an EF-S lens if you have a 40D or other 1.6 crop body.<br>

1 nice thing about EF-S is the lenses are smaller and lighter so they do have some advantages and if you go full frame simply sell them. </p>

<p>Just buy what you like and need. If you eliminate EF-S simply because someday you might go FF you're losing out on some excellent optics. You can always sell them if you toss APS. Selling a lens is a lot faster and easier than back in the day. However, most FF shooters also use APS so these lenses could be useful longer than you think.</p>

<p>What is the effect of using EF lenses on 40D? They work great. I have a 40D and of the few lenses that I have only one of them is specifically designed for the crop-sensor. If nothing else these should be less susceptable to vignetting and other edge effects that might show up with EFS lenses.</p>

<p>Assuming you can get the EF-S lenses cheaper (and smaller) you're weighing that against the risk of you're buying a Canon Full Frame camera such as a 5D mk II and having to sell them and buy replacements for them. Only you know if this is a real possibility. And that assumes that Canon will go on selling a mix of APS and FF cameras. There is always the chance that Canon will eventually have ALL full frame cameras and that you will eventually be forced to upgrade anyway.</p>

<p>Of course if you never upgrade to full frame, then buying the larger, more expensive full frame lenses means you'll spend more money and have a heavier camera bag for all the time you're shooting the system. So there is no easy answer.</p>

<p>I say if you can get the focal length you want in EF, go that route, when you go full frame later you will be set.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is always the chance that Canon will eventually have ALL full frame cameras and that you will eventually be forced to upgrade anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that it will be a cold day in hell before this prediction comes true. The new 7D is Canon's resounding denial of the theory that they see "full-frame" as some kind of goal rather than just another format. That is why most people no longer use the misleading term "full frame" any more.</p>

<p>Not that it matters, but in actual historical fact, the 35mm format is really "double-frame" since it represented the 2X increase in the image size from the size (18x24mm) used in 35mm motion pictures (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera#Before_WWII">link</a> ). The point is that formats change faster than the minds of the old timers who grew up on 24x36mm slides and are unable to learn new tricks (I know, because I am one of them).</p>

<p>In other words, Puppy Face is absolutely right. Get what you need for the best price you can now. If you really do go to 35mm-sensor cameras exclusively in the future, there will still be a market for the EF-S lenses at least as long as there are any dSLRs left. I have a Canon 5D, but still use my APS-C cameras and am glad to have the EF-S 17-85mm, the "digital-only" Sigma 10-20mm and also have a Canon 24-105mm and a Sigma 15-30mm for the 5D. The only downside is that this weighs a lot if I take everything along. All my primes work equally well (if for different applications) on both APS-C and 35mm sensor bodies.</p>

<p>Could be, but then I remember Nikon's denial that they were ever going to go full frame. And then there was Leica's denial that a full frame digital rangefinder was possible. And I'll bet Konica Minolta denied the idea of leaving the film business at some point. And I did say that it was just a chance. The fact is that APS sized sensors were originally used because full frame sensors were too expensive to produce. Now that that is becoming more feasible, is it really so unlikely that full frame sensors could be used in all cameras? Canon could always provide a mode that uses the center 2/3 of the sensor in order to still be able to mount those APS lenses.</p>

<p>There's no way to know of course. Something is only inconceivable until it happens.</p>

<p>No matter how cheap 35mm sensors become, APS-C sensors will always be easier and cheapar to make, so in that respect APS-C will be around for a long time yet. For most non-professionals not printing above 18x12 the 7D is every bit as good as the 5D2 - so other than kudos, ego and pride of ownership (none of which are bad) there ever fewer reasons to go to 35mm sensor.</p>

<p>They'll always be cheaper, but if they're just a little cheaper, and the company sees an advantage in saying "oh, we're full frame" they'll do it the same way they put 12MP in a sensor that can't really profit from it. Think how amazing the DSLRs of today are relative to what we had 10 years ago. Who's to say that in 10 more years, the 5Ds sensor will be so cheap to produce you can put it in any camera. That is how technology usually goes right? So at the point where you can use a full frame or an APS sensor and the difference in cost is a few dollars, are you going to put the APS sensor in? Why? Just to be stubborn?</p>

<p>There are reasons to prefer APS sensors in some applications (like maybe sports), but is there any reason to prefer an APS sensor in a more general camera like the Canon Rebel? I'm not a prophet so I could be completely wrong. I guess we'll see in a decade or so how things go.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your insight. Sorry I've been away and not able to resopnd earlier. </p>