Are EF-S Lenses a good investment?

[aamir_h]

<p>Why thank you all for your responses.<br>

I did indeed check out some photos taken with the 17-40 on Flickr, and from what I saw, a lot of them were taken on an APS-C body, and were as wide as I need. So in that sense, I don't think there's a problem for me there.</p>

[faysal]

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup<br>

If you look under WIDE ANGLE, you will see both varieties of the 28mm and 35mm primes.<br>

If you look under ULTRA WIDE ANGLE, you will see the 10-22mm, the 16-35, and the 17-40.<br>

In 2010, 28mm is still significantly wider than normal perspective on aps-c and 35mm, the only 2 formats I chose to mention. So being that 17 on a 1.6 crop still appears to be on the wide side, it is still a wide angle. Yes 17-40 behaves differently on APS-C but the point I was making was that it is quite likely that the focal range given would likely still be sufficient to the OP, as just affirmed.<br>

Now the OP </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Ach du lieber Gott!<br>

Als Zarathustra aber allein war, sprach er also zu seinem Herzen: "Solte es möglich sein! Dieser alte Heilige hat in seinem Walde noch nichts davon gehört, daß Brennweite relativ ist?"<br>

with apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche.</p>

[faysal]

<p>Sadly, if anything, you made his work that much better. His concept of an ubermensch affirms how snobbish, self-centered, and condescending of a man he was in my book, but I guess that's about as irrelevant to anyone as the above statement :) .</p>