EF-S Lenses

[mareko]

Hello,

<br><br>

I'm currently an owner of the Canon 300D Rebel with a kit and EF 200mm

f/2.8L lens. I am looking at expanding my lens collection. Right now

I am contemplating reaching one of the following two lens collections:

<br><br>

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM<br>

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM<br>

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br>

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

<br><br>

-or-

<br><br>

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM<br>

EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM<br>

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br>

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

<br><br>

Both selections would hopefully be able to meet all of my needs

without costing all of my organs (maybe just a few). The two only

differ in the choice of the standard zoom and macro lens. In the

second selection, I chose the 100mm macro to fill the focal length gap

between the EF-S 17-85mm and the 200mm while satisfying my need for a

macro lens.

<br><br>

The first selection gives me more range and a relatively fast portrait

prime (the 60mm macro). Also, I'm guessing that (since they released

it) the 60mm would be a much better choice (compared to the 100mm) for

doing macro work with the 1.6 crop ratio on the rebel. On the other

hand, I'm worried that of the two standard zooms, the EF-S 17-85mm

will be a better choice since it has a newer generation IS, circular

aperture and that fancy digi coating. Does anyone know how the two

compare?

<br><br>

My final hesitation is to do with EF-S lenses in general. I'm

assuming that the format will stick around at least for a while but

what about resale value. Are these lenses good enough to keep their

value? Also, will they be sharp enough with the next generation of

1.6 crop cameras when they reach 10 or even 15 megapixels (the time I

hope to upgrade my camera body).

<br><br>

Many thanks,

<br><br>

Marek

[ted_sorensen1]

I can't answer all of your questions. I can't answer "which is better" in terms of sharpness, for example, but I do have a couple of comments:

 

To the second set option, I would add a 50/1.8 (even a used one) because it is cheap and would give you a good portrait angle of view in 1.6x crop. I have a 100 macro and it can be nice for head shots but is too long to be an all-around versatile portrait lens. The 60 macro, however, may be more suitable in that regard. I have not used it.

 

I would consider you shooting style and preferred subject matter in choosing between the 28-135 and the 17-85 ranges. I think that with either set of lenses you are sufficiently covered for range. Personally I like to have a mid-range zoom that minimizes my need to change lenses in a hurry in my typical shooting situations (which would tend to happen more with mid-range focal lengths ? photographing people at events or weddings for example). That could lead you to either lens depending on your style or preferred subject matter.

 

Personally I am more attracted to buying EF-S lenses in wide angles than in longer focal lengths. The full-frame alternatives are less attractive in wide angle so the risk-reward ratio is better. I can't predict the future regarding 1.6x but I doubt it will go away anytime soon based on recent product releases.

 

I would personally doubt that things like "... newer generation IS, circular aperture and that fancy digi coating... " are things to get overly hung up on when choosing among the choices you presented.

[david_kieltyka1]

I wouldn't worry about EF-S. Larger sensors account for a tiny portion of Canon's output. The APS-like format has already established itself as the new 35mm in the consumer/prosumer D-SLR market. Canon likely sold more 350Ds in May than they've sold the 1D, 1D MkII, 1Ds and 1Ds MkII models combined to date.

 

The 17-85mm is certainly built as well as the 28-135mm. I think it's a more practical choice for your 300D. I bought one and am using it as my standard 20D lens. I also recently bought the 60mm macro and am very impressed with it. Optically it's outstanding. Build quality is the same as with the 100mm macro...not Canon's best but plenty good enough. Which one to choose comes down IMO to working distance. If you like taking photos of insects you might prefer the 100mm with its greater working distance for a given magnification. My close-up work involves mostly non-moving subjects, and I like the 60mm focal length with the 20D for portraits, so I went with the shorter lens.

 

-Dave-

[ericpetersonphoto]

I would get as few ef-s lenses as possible. In 5 years you may have a full frame sensor. I have the 10-22 I really like it. That is the only one I would recommend. Get the 10-22, 28-135 IS, 100 2.8 Macro, 50 1.8 and 200 2.8 L. Have fun.

[jon_austin]

What Eric said.

 

For me, the correct number of EF-S lenses is zero, but then again, the 17-40 is plenty wide enough for my needs.

 

If any lens (EF-S or otherwise) meets your current and anticipated needs, and provides sufficient utility (optical quality, build quality, value for the price) to suit you, don't worry about its resale value, if any. Just buy it and use it. If/when you upgrade to a non-EF-S compatible body, you can always bundle the lenses into the sale of your used camera.

[jean_jacques_lemaire]

I'd personnally go for your first set. But it's purely a question of taste and shooting habits.<BR>

I already had a 28-135 before buying a DSLR (1.6x crop) and finally love it as a 45-216 equivalent... just because it corresponds to my tastes. I feel less obliged to switch between my 28-135 and 70-200, what I mainly complained for.<BR><BR>

 

I would also certainly hesitate to add a Sigma (yes) 18-50 f/2.8 EX HSM. It's well built, and using Ultrasonic motors (quiet and fast). I generaly use 18-55 (29-90 equivalent) indoors and f/2.8 would be interesting.<BR>

<BR>

I think that the IS lens you choose (17-85 or 28-135) should be the one you use the most. So, check about the way you shoot the most :)

[kevin_harper]

Consider the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di as you're standard zoom......It's a cut above the 28-135 and 17-85 IS. Less expensive too.

[grant g]

I have all the lenses in the 2nd list. But I would hesitate to recommend the 17-85IS. Decent, but not that great. A good travel lens. I'd rather use the 24-70L/2.8 or sigma 18-50/2.8. Since you are getting the 10-22, I'd think the 28-135IS to be a better choice if you stick with the options on your list.

 

I'd get the 100/2.8 over the 60/2.8 EF-S, but I also have non-EF-S digitals, full frame and APS cameras so the choice is obvious to me. the 100 is about as long as the 200/2.8 without the hood, if not longer.

[carl_weller]

I wouldn't get either set. EF-S lenses are overpriced for what they are. You pay the typical canon 'shiny and new' price premium. The 28-135 is an OK lense, but was only ever really one of the better consumer grade lenses. It is no match for a good prime or an L zoom.

 

My personal choice would be the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L with a 50/1.8 for a portrait lense. These 3 lenses will cost about the same as the 2 ef-s zooms you list, but are significantly better quality, in fact they are 3 of the very best performing, best value lenses canon sells. Either the 60 or 100 as a macro lense would probably be fine, down to shooting style really.

 

You could even ebay the wonderful 200/2.8L and use the cash to upgrade the 70-200 to a F2.8 version if you wanted to.

 

regards,

[yakim_peled1]

I'd get the second set but replace the 17-85 IS with the Tamron 28-75/2.8. I also think that the 100/2.8 is better than the 60/2.8 as it allows you more working distance and will mount on all bodies.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jean_jacques_lemaire]

also take into account that the 200mm f/2.8 becomes a 320mm equivalent with the cropping factor. For my personal taste, it's between too-long and not-long-enough. Unless you use it with a 1.4x or 2x extender (what I actually use).

Maybe go for a 300mm instead, if the price doesn't count ;)

[jim_larson1]

Consider: The two IS lenses listed are significantly lower quality than the other lenses in the list.

 

Consider: The 17-85/IS and 28-135/IS have similar optical quality, but the 28-135/IS is much cheaper. Paired with the 10-22; the 28-135 represents far more versatility in a two lens package.

 

Consider: For portraits, why use a $400 60/2.8 when a $70 50/1.8 will yield better results? For 1:1 Macro, why use a 60/2.8 EF-S when a 100/2.8 EF is the same price? All you get is smaller size with reduced future compatibility.

 

My pics:

10-22

 

28-135/IS

 

50/1.8

 

100/2.8 Macro

 

200/2.8L

[david_lau3]

Start from the wide angle first:

 

10-22 is an excellent lens and the best choice for true wide angle on a 1.6X sensor.

 

Then I recommend the Tamron 28-75/f2.8. This is also an excellent lens for such a low price. (the only thing is to make sure you test out a few samples and pick the best one).

 

Together with the 10-22 it provides a light weight and high performance package to cover the 16-120mm equivalent range. This is also the combination that I take for travelling.

 

I have both the 200/f2.8 and 300/f4 IS but I agree with the previous post that 200mm on 1.6X sensor is not too long and not too short. I do not find much use of it now and prefer the 300mm, especially like the IS function. (The 200/f2.8 was my favourite on EOS 3)

 

For the macro, I have the Tamron 90/f2.8 Di. Its image quality is better than Canon 100/f2.8 but it does not have USM. Not a problem to me as I mainly facous manually for macro shots. In my country it is much cheaper (just US$320) than the Canon 100/f2.8.

 

My suggestion and what I am using now:

 

EF-S 10-22/f3.5-4.5

 

Tamron 28-75/f2.8

 

Tamron 90/f2.8 Di

 

EF 300/f4 IS

 

EF 1.4X

[mareko]

Thanks a lot for all your great responses. I definitely feel more informed right now. I also agree that the 200mm on a 1.6x camera has a bit of a strange feel to it, though I love its bokeh and crispness too much to sell it right now. I frequently go backpacking so the heavy 300mm f/4 doesn't appeal to me that much. The 200mm is definitely sharp and fast enough to work very well with the 1.4 extender which I would like to buy sometime down the road. As for the wider lenses, I'm still going to have to think a bit. I had previously overlooked the 17-40 f/4L and the Tamron 28-75/f2.8. Thanks a lot for bringing them to my attention! I've also thought a bit about going to primes. Instead of a so so standard zoom I could buy the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/1.4, which could work well with the 10-22 and the 100 macro provided I am willing to miss a few shots.

[rodger_newbold]

Marek -

 

I have used the EF-S 10-22 on my 20D and I believe it is of high quality and the correct

lens, if you want a wide angle. I have not used the EF-s 60, since I already had a EF 50.

 

But the lens set I would suggest would be;

EF-S 10-22

EF 28-135 IS

EF-S 60 or EF 50

EF 70-200 f4 L

12mm extension tube.

 

This will give you a great range and good quality.

Some have said not to get EF-S, in the event you move to a full frame sensor. If this

happens use the EF-S lenses on the body intended or sell them with that body when you

move up.

 

Good luck and happy shooting, Rodger

[ consultant to www.pictureline.com & dir. of photo @ www.slacphoto.net]