EF-S lens appears to be outperforming the EF L lenses

[h_s1]

<p>On this <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=1&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0">website</a> that one can use to compare sharpness of various Canon lenses, I have compared the following lenses with<br /> Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM:</p>

<p>* Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM<br /> * Canon EF 24-104 f/4 IS USM</p>

<p>It looks like the EF-S lens is sharper than both of these in many situations.</p>

<p>I have not done exhaustive comparison (so I won't say that the EF-S lens is sharper than the other two), but from the various settings I have tried, the EF-S lens appears to be outperforming both of the above EF lenses, at least in shaprness and resolution.</p>

<p>So other than the constructions of L lenses being more robust than the EF-S (that is one thing I have seen some users keep on repeating here), is there any advanctage of using EF lenses on digital crop sensor bodies at all?</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>EF lenses on crop sensor cameras generally show less vignetting than EF-S lenses. Other than that, the EF-S 17-55 is more expensive than either the EF 17-40 or the EF 24-105, so if it <em>wasn't</em> sharper (or better in some other way such as being faster) you might be somewhat disapointed.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>All these lenses vary with each individual sample, so you may find exception such reviews. I own all three zooms and would classify them in the same ball park as far as sharpness is concerned. Of course they are equally sharp but the differences are minor. Perhaps my 24-105 is above average but it's on par with my 17-55 in the center and a bit better around the edges. It certainly is less flare prone than the 17-55. Both soften up a bit at close focus. If I were to point out the weakest link among the 3 optics, the flare and ghosting of the 17-55 puts it at a big disadvantage for night street shooting and sunsets. But then having F2.8 is sweet and kinda makes up for the flare.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>is there any advantage of using EF lenses on digital crop sensor bodies at all?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Three words: No EF-S primes. <em>[except that one 60mm macro]</em></p>

<p>But when it comes to zooms I would always prefer APS-C lenses on a crop-factor camera -- else you carry weight and pay for something you are not going to use.</p>

[tom_burke3]

<p>Bob: In the UK the 24-105 is typically more expensive than the 17-55, by up to £100. Jessops' and Jacobs' websites both show this. (They're two of the countries leading camera stores, and each have a bricks & mortar chain of shops as well as their websites.)</p>

<p>The 17-40 is generally cheaper, though.</p>

[david_huang1]

<p>The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM and Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM are about equal sharpness in both wide open and f8. But there are two major differences between the two lenses. Only the 17-40 works in a full frame body and the apertures are different. Generally, f2.8 lenses are more expensive. No really winner but very distinct features in two different lenses.<br>

<p><br>

It is best if you compared lenses with similar focal lengths. Comparing the Canon EF 24-104 f/4 IS USM to the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 or the EF 24-70mm f2.8 lens would be more like apples to apples. IMHO I feel the 24-105 is sharper and has more contrast. The auto focus is much faster than the 24-70. However, all three lenses have very different apertures. In a way, the lenses behaves very differently while having similar focal lengths. Personally, I expect Canon to update the 24-70. It is long over due.<br>

<p>Lastly, the L series lenses have faster and quieter auto focus as well as ability to auto focus in lower lighting situations.<br /> Happy lens hunting!<br /> Cheers,<br /> DH</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>HS,</p>

<p>The size of the image circle is very important, it is much cheaper and easier to make a lens of X quality that has a much smaller image circle. The payoff is that from a quality point of view the larger image circle gets enlarged much less in actual use so the lens imperfections get enlarged less, so the crop camera lens really needs to test quite a bit better than the ff one to give you the same quality print.</p>

<p>So to make a 12x18 print from a crop camera and a ff one, the crop camera image, and the associated lens imperfections, are actually enlarged over twice as much as the FF ones. Although you use the sharper part of the image circle with the ff lens when you use it on a crop camera, the truth is you are using less than half of the available area, this is very wasteful. EF L lenses are all optimised for FF use. It is like having a 7 seat SUV and commuting to work by yourself in it, it does the job but that is not what it is optimised for.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actual tests such as those on Photozone.de and elsewhere, often show that the "sweet spot" idea may not always correspond with the actual reality of how different lenses work. Still, all in all, it is generally easier to cover a smaller diameter field. However. I'd just emphasize the points made about each design being its own story. Some designs like the old Biotar are just amazing; others, well they work, that's about all. <br>

Still, some lenses like the ancient 6cm-coverage 'Olympic' Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 turn out to be just as good on 35mm and smaller sensors as they are on the larger format.</p>

<p>There certainly is still sample variation, although I do not think that is anything like so great as it was in the hand-crafted era.</p>

<p>The generalizations above are valid generalizations, but as the ads say, 'your mileage may differ.'</p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>So other than the constructions of L lenses being more robust than the EF-S (that is one thing I have seen some users keep on repeating here), is there any advanctage of using EF lenses on digital crop sensor bodies at all?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're going to migrate to full frame in the near future, sticking with EF lens might make sense. If you're going to continue to use both formats it's debatable.</p>

<p>I think you have to take it lens-by-lens, get what you need, keeping an eye to the future. Also, it's not chiseled in stone that L lens are sharper.</p>

<p>As a group the L's likely <em>trend</em> sharper, and have sharpness that extends more into the corners, have nicer bokeh due to design and aperture blades, have less light fall-off, distortion, chromatic abberation. But there are plenty of exceptions, you need to consider each lens purchase on individual merits.</p>

[h_s1]

<p>Great points, folks. Thanks for all the feedback.</p>

<p>Just to be clear, I am using both formats. I have EOS film cameras and a crop sensor camera as well. In the future I am not sure which is going to be added to the collection and I cannot rule out a FF EOS digital. Hence the motivation to look at various format lenses.</p>

<p>Form the comparisons I have seen, I might as well just go for the EF-S lens specifically for the crop sensor format cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think that it is always wiser to go with what you need now, rather than hobble yourself on the chance that something may happen--unless you absolutely, completely know you're going to go 35mm-sensor soon.</p>

<p>The EF-S lens in this case would be easily marketable, and you may well keep your APS-C body too, so will continue to use it. I have both digital formats, and shoot with some EF-S and other EF lenses all the time.</p>

[john_fleetwood]

<p>More EF-S primes, please, Canon. Small, light.</p>

[elliotte_harold]

<p>Two things to note:<br>

1. Many lenses--e.g. 100mm macros--are only available as full-frame EF lenses. If you want a a 100mm or longer macro, you buy an EF lens. There simply is no EF-S alternative. Ditto for long telephotos: 300mm and up. I wish Canon (or someone) would make some really high quality long EF-S lenses, like a 70-200 f/2.8, a 300 f/2.8, or a 400mm f/4 or even longer but so far no one has. :-(<br>

2. The L designation has a number of requirements. Among them is that they are used on EF mounts. So far, no matter how exceptional and expensive an EF-S lens is, Canon will not designate it as an L-series. So don't be surprised that the best and most expensive EF-S lenses like the 17-55 or the 10-22 can match or exceed the quality of the L series when pixel peeping.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>depends on what you're after in a lens. sharpness, nearly always, has nothing to do with a great image.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I have EOS film cameras and a crop sensor camera as well. In the future I am not sure which is going to be added to the collection and I cannot rule out a FF EOS digital.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't blame you, H.S. Each format has its strength, and I am increasingly surprised at what I can get with crop sensor cameras and the lenses made for them. I also continue to be astonished at the low-light capabilities of the full-frame sensor cameras. I would hate to choose between them at this point, although economic considerations might force me to decide sooner than I wish.</p>

<p>As for the 17-40, it certainly is a fine lens if used with a tripod and if stopped down to the sweet spot. I have not heard anyone rave about it when shot wide open. Therein lies one posible problem with going full-frame: the lenses that can do the job in some situations are really going to cost. Compare the EF 17-40 and the EF 16-35, for example. Then again, if one is not going to shoot either wide open, and if one is going to use a tripod, there is a range of apertures at which the images are very nearly indistinguishable.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>HS the 24-105 is a challenging design to manufacture as it has to go from retrofocus to telefocus. This is why the best standard zooms split at 70mm or 80mm to avoid this issue. The 17-55 avoids this issue and is probably best compared to the 24-70 F2.8 Unfortunately the digital picture only allows comparison of a full frame to and APS-C body but you can see the 24-70 advantage. I had the 24-105 but replaced it with the 24-70 which is definitely a better lens optically. Photozone.de does test of all three lenses (plus the 24-70) on an 8MP APS-C sensor and gives the following resolution at F5.6<br>

24-70 F2.8 - 2040 center, 1817 edge<br>

24-105 F4 - 2023 center 1804 edge<br>

17-55 F2.8 - 2093 center 1776 edge<br>

17-49 F4 - 2038 center 1685 edge<br>

Not much between them but this is a low resolution camera. On the EOS 50D they have <br>

24-105 F4 - 2488 center 2255 edge<br>

17-55 F2.8 - 2455 center 2187 edge<br>

17 - 40 F4 - 2443 center 2200 edge<br>

On full frame at F4 they show the following<br>

24-70 f2.8 - 3240 center 2512 edge<br>

24-105 - 3216 center2363 edge<br>

17-40 - 3342 center 1072 edge<br>

16-35 F2.8 II 3482 center 2195 edge<br>

All of these were taken at the wide end of the range. When you look at other factors such as vignetting, distortion and CA you find that you get what you pay for. DXOMark shows similar results with the 24-105 and 24-70 both reaching 60 line pairs per mm, the 16-35 F2.8 II reaching 52 and the 17-55 F2.8 50 line pairs per mm. However when you bring in the sensor the scores they give the lenses are:<br>

5DII plus 24-105 F4 = 53<br>

5DII plus 16-35 F2.8 II = 45<br>

5DII plus 24-70 f2.8 =47<br>

7D plus 17-55 F2.8 = 29<br>

This shows the real advantage of a full frame lens - you can use it on a full frame sensor! If you plan to go to full frame you should consider a full frame lens although the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 is easy to sell used so you can buy it and trade it later.</p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>In general, the 17-55 f2.8 IS is an awesome lens. I bought it when it first came out, and I have not been disappointed.</p>

<p>However, there are two problems with this lens that I and others have noticed:</p>

<ol>

<li>It's a dust magnet. The push pull action pulls dust inside the lens body. Unless you are skilled at removing the front element and cleaning the second element yourself, it's a trip to the factory for a cleaning if you use it in a dusty environment.</li>

<li>The IS feature is more prone to failure on this lens than other IS lenses. If you are relying on this lens for professional work, learn to recognize the failure mode. It starts vibrating in place, and you have to shut off IS to get the lens to focus reliably. Again, it's a trip to the factory to fix.</li>

</ol>

<p>Other than that, I have been very pleased. I used to have several nice primes to cover the 17-55 range, but I no longer use them, because this lens is almost as sharp, and much more convenient.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[h_s1]

<p>Thank you all for insights. Very useful information. Phillip, thanks for listing the various metrics.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>The comparison refers to different cameras, a crop vs. a FF camera. Using a FF lens on a crop camera you can expect the corners to improve.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p> The L designation has a number of requirements. Among them is that they are used on EF mounts. So far, no matter how exceptional and expensive an EF-S lens is, Canon will not designate it as an L-series.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not strictly correct. Canon released the Pro 1 8 megapixel digi cam around 2003/4 with an L zoom attached. This was a non interchangable zoom lens. I would enjoy asking Canon about that one.</p>

[john_fleetwood]

<p>Ty, most of my published photos have been in scientific journals, where sharpness is very important.</p>

[john_fleetwood]

<p>Hey Canon, catch up with Nikon. Your lenses aren't making it.</p>