EF lenses for APS-C Formated cam ?

[gerhard_selke]

<p>I have a Canon 40D and I consider to buy most L lenses, because I want to have sometimes a fullframe cam, like the 5D.<br>

Is this a good idea? Or should I have to buy EF-S lenses?<br>

I have now the kit lens EF-S 17-85mm and EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 100mm macro f/2.8 and the EF 70-200mm L IS USM.<br />Wanted to sell the kit lens and buy e.g. EF 16-35mm and/or EF 24-70mm f/2.8. Above all min f/2.8 </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Non-L primes are great lenes. Primes aren't as hard to make to get great results and very few people actually need an L prime. On the other hand, there is nothing better than an L zoom, no matter what camera you have. There a couple great performers in the EF-S line up such as the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 10-22mm, but you can never go wrong with an L lens. This doesn't mean that other lenses aren't worthy, but there is definitely something to be said about that red stripe.</p>

[joe_oconnor3]

<p>Stiick with the EF and especially L series lens. EF-S lens are a great trap that Canon has made. If you go full frame the lens simply will not work. This means you have to go buy the lens over again.</p>

<p>Your idea of buying only L series glass is the best way to go and you won't regret the decision.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

JPO</p>

[paddler4]

<p>You are mixing two questions together. One is EF-S vs. EF. EF-S lenses can be made smaller and lighter than EF lenses. EF lenses have the advantage that you can use them on a FF, if you buy one. However, if you buy a FF down the road, you can always sell your EF-S lenses.</p>

<p>The second question is L vs. other full-frame lenses, including both Canon EF lenses and full-frame lenses from Tamron, Sigma, etc.. If what concerns you is image quality, you can often get great lenses for far less than L. For example, all the tests I have read indicate that your macro lens, which is not an L, is optically very close to the 100mm L, which I bought for the hybrid IS. My EF-S 60mm macro is cheaper, smaller, and lighter and is reasonably close in optical quality.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Dan's comments +1<br>

Buy what's suitable now. If you're like me, you'll keep your old APS-C bodies even when you do buy a 35mm-sensor camera, if ever--so the older lenses will still be usable.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Dan’s comments +2.</p>

 

<p>Where does it stop? If it makes sense to not buy EF-S lenses because one day you might upgrade,

then surely it must make even more sense to only buy medium format lenses with an adapter in case you

upgrade even further. But what about those large format lenses? Surely they must be an even better investment still.</p>

 

<p>APS-C is a most respectable format, and it’s here to stay. If you print on a desktop-sized

printer with only the rare foray into large prints, you’ll never be humanly capable of discerning

the difference between APS-C and “full frame.” The larger format really only makes sense

if your main printer is too big to fit on a desktop.</p>

 

<p>Now, considering that APS-C is less expensive, lighter, and generally superior in most ways not

relating to pixels-on-the-paper image quality, what’t not to love? Why would you want to leave it?

</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you are <em>certain</em> that you will get a full frame body <em>very soon</em> then it can make sense to get lenses with your long term firm goals in mind. On the other hand, if the move to full frame is more of a hope than a solid plan and/or if it is quite a distance in the future, it makes more sense to buy the right lenses for the photography you are doing now.</p>

<p>In some cases - though not all - the EFS lens can be the best choice on virtually all objective considerations. Two come to mind immediately. One is the EFS 10-22 lens, which is arguably the best UWA zoom on cropped sensor bodies. The other is the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens - which is generally a better choice than the typical L alternatives on virtually all counts.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[pgranone]

<p>I think it depends on the quality of the lens. I do not see EF-S lenses as a dead end. Some have very good image quality, and are smaller. I do not think that huge heavy L zooms are always the best approach.<br>

The Canon EF-S 10-22, and Tokina 35mm F2.8 macro are both excellent lenses on my 7D. I think the 10-22 outperforms the 17-40 F4 L i used when I had a 5D. The Tokina 35mm F2.8 is a joy to use with very good focusing, and strong close focusing performance. </p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Think of it this way - top quality EF L series lens hold their value remarkably well (indeed some of mine will sell on ebay for more than I paid as the new prices increase over time). For very wide angles you will need an EF-S lens like the 10-22 but this is the only case I can think of. I came from film and even on my 7D I almost always use EF lenses - mind you I also shoot full frame. The EFS 17-55 F2.8 has a good reputation but I really like my 24-70 F2.8 which is the full frame equivalent. Similarly my 16-35 f2.8 II makes a good standard zoom on the 7D but it is about twice the price of the EF-S lens and has an annoying 82mm filter size.<br>

I suspect that just like the L series EF lenses the 17-55 F2.8 will not lose much value although it's construction is not as good as the L series lenses.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Don't be afraid of EF-S lenses. They offer a great match for your APS-C cameras, and are a better choice in some cases than the EF-L lenses. The bogus argument about a FF future has been raging for years. Every year, it's the same thing "Cheap FF is going to kill APS any day now". Of course, it doesn't ever happen, as APS-C is here to stay.</p>

<p>I own many EF-L lenses that I bought over the years, as they are the best for some jobs, and on some of my cameras. On the other hand, I would never be without the EF-S 10-22, or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lenses for my crop cameras. They are simply the best lenses Canon offers in the range, and except for weather proofing on some L lenses, those two EF-S lenses are L grade in every sense. Some people confuse the high tech polycarbonate/fiber body construction to be cheap, but it is not. It is as rugged as any build. My lenses are several years old, and have seen constant commercial abuse. They remain in perfect operational condition today. The lens hoods show the hits they took over time, but they are pretty well bullet proof, and do their job well. The extra money for a factory EF-S hood is worth every penney.</p>

<p>This is my idea of a solid APS-C basic high-performance lens kit. You can add to your heart's content later, but this is a solid foundation, and it only contains one L series lens. The bodies don't matter as much, but each of these was supposed to "never happen", as FF for the masses was "just around the corner". Right...</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2945652177_a04b5811f4_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>

<p> </p>

[don_enevoldson]

<p>How serious are you in moving to full frame? It sounds like that's really the heart of the question. I've pondered this myself for a long time (I use the 50D), and finally decided I was perfectly happy with the APS-C system, for my needs. In my case, I shoot mainly telephoto, and the 1.6 crop helps tremendously with that and my wallet (a 400m becomes essentially a 640mm). For the occasional wide angle shots, I use the 10-22 EF-S lens (which works well). So my advice is to ask yourself if you have a specific reason to move to full frame. There's nothing wrong with getting an EF-S lens, unless next month you're going to buy that 5D :-)</p>

<p> </p>