| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2006 11:22:27 AM · #1 |
I hope to have my 30D in the next couple of days and I'm comparing lenses. Obviously, one of the disadvantages of an EF-S lens is limited compatability. What are the advantages to an EF-S over an EF lens
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 11:26:58 AM · #2 |
EF-S is designed specifically for the APS-C (1.6-crop) sensor format. Since it does not need to project a full 44mm image circle, the lens can be made somewhat smaller and lighter, which also can reduce cost.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:05:35 PM · #3 |
I'd agree with maybe smaller, but the EF-S lenses do not seem that much smaller or lighter. And as for being cheaper, I don't see that as well.
I had a EF-S mount lens and a cropped sensor lens as well, but sold both of them.
As for me, I really don't see much advantage to the cropped sensor only lenses.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:13:11 PM · #4 |
In theory, they are optically optimized for the smaller image circle. There are advantages to this.
Another thing to consider; the 60mm EF-S macro gives you about the same angular coverage as the 100mm Macro on full frame. And it's a lot smaller and lighter than the 100...
I donno, I like both mine a lot...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:22:12 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by yido:
I'd agree with maybe smaller, but the EF-S lenses do not seem that much smaller or lighter. And as for being cheaper, I don't see that as well.
I had a EF-S mount lens and a cropped sensor lens as well, but sold both of them.
As for me, I really don't see much advantage to the cropped sensor only lenses. |
ah, but you now have a cropped sensor cam that doesn't take EF-S lenses ;) I'm looking forward to the weekend when I can put my 1Dn through its paces with the 17-40.
As for the EF-S lens whilst I'm pretty sure there will always be a market for them I reckon in 5 years time and half serious fotog will have access to a full frame 16mp cam for under £1000 (don't quote this in 2011 though).
|
|
|
|
03/28/2006 03:52:31 PM · #6 |
Here's one way to think about it:
The Canon EF 17-40mm is a great lens. But on a 1.6x crop sensor, it does not live up to its full potential. The Canon EF-S 10-22mm brings some of that lost functionality back to the 1.6x cameras (being an equivalent of 16-35mm).
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens is an excellent example of what you can get from an EF-S lens. Just try getting a quality 10mm lens in a non-EFS mount and you'll quickly see the cost/size/weight benefit. :=)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 05:23:00 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 11:18:46 AM · #8 |
If EF-S are aready croped it makes sense to aply 1.6 crop factor to it?
I had believed that Nikon DX or Canon EF-S are mounts for DIGITAL pourpose exactly to get away with the crop factor.
Thinking this way an EF-S 10-22 will be real 10-22 angle coverage equivalent to a full frame EF 10-22 at a full frame body or 35mm film camera.
I´m in a wrong way?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 11:30:09 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by GoodEnd:
If EF-S are aready croped it makes sense to aply 1.6 crop factor to it?
I had believed that Nikon DX or Canon EF-S are mounts for DIGITAL pourpose exactly to get away with the crop factor.
Thinking this way an EF-S 10-22 will be real 10-22 angle coverage equivalent to a full frame EF 10-22 at a full frame body or 35mm film camera.
I´m in a wrong way? |
Yah, you're thinking wrong. Focal length is what it is. It doesn't change depending on what size of sensor you put behind it. The ONLY reason we have a "crop factor" is to give us a benchmark to compare angular coverage between cameras with different-size sesnors.
This has been around since long before digital cameras, BTW. On a 4x5 inch film camera, a 70mm lens is the "equivalent" of a 24mm lens on a 35mm film camera. EVERY lens has a different angular coverage (crop factor) depending on what camera it is mounted to.
EVERY lens throws a circular image at the sensor. EF lenses throw an image circle large enough to contain a full, 35mm-sized frame of film. EF-S lenses have their image circle limited to APS-C xensor size, allowing them to be smaller and lighter than their full-frame brethren, basically. It makes good optical sense to "target" lenses to their intended format and maximize their performance within that image circle.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 11:49:01 AM · #10 |
Finally the "coin has falled down"!
It obvious that a small plate has a small angular coverage, given the same focal lenght. You will only get equal coverage (crop factor) if you get the lens nearest the sensor, but this will vanish compatibility between lens lines and bodies.
Thanks BEAR_MUSIC.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 12:01:47 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GoodEnd:
If EF-S are aready croped it makes sense to aply 1.6 crop factor to it?
I had believed that Nikon DX or Canon EF-S are mounts for DIGITAL pourpose exactly to get away with the crop factor.
Thinking this way an EF-S 10-22 will be real 10-22 angle coverage equivalent to a full frame EF 10-22 at a full frame body or 35mm film camera.
I´m in a wrong way? |
Focal lengths aren't 'cropped'. Any lense of a given focal length will give the same image. Putting a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera will give the same image as mounting it on a 8x10 view camera - or not mounting it at all.
Don't let the 1.6 crop factor confuse you. The lens is doing what it always has. The 'film' is just looking at it differently. This factor deal is useful to understand if you are interested in filling the frame with a particular subject. If an 85mm lens on a 35mm camera will fill the frame with a head portrait, then a 50mm lens on an APS 1.6x factor will do pretty much the same thing for you.
Then again, all you need to do is mount a lens and look to see if it's working for you.
Sorry to hijack the thread; let me close with my understanding of the EF-S
The 'S' stands for short focus - Canon has made it so these lenses sit further back closer to the image sensor (as much as they can with the mirror). They did this so super wides can be made to approach the super wides of a full frame sensor - this is why you now see 9-10-11 mm super wide angle lenses - so they can crop out close to the 14mm super wides of the 35mm film lenses.
-Rick |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 12:19:16 PM · #12 |
there really isn't any advantage in getting the EF-S lenses, exept for size, weight and price.
the real advantage is using EF lenses on cameras with crop factor, that way the lens will give you the 44mm circle but you only use the center of the circle and by that you are only using the best part of the lens and that will give you much sharper and better image.
and you will never suffer from vignetting from an EF lens, only from EF-S lenses :)
Message edited by author 2006-04-10 12:19:30.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 12:48:46 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
EVERY lens throws a circular image at the sensor. EF lenses throw an image circle large enough to contain a full, 35mm-sized frame of film. EF-S lenses have their image circle limited to APS-C xensor size, allowing them to be smaller and lighter than their full-frame brethren, basically. It makes good optical sense to "target" lenses to their intended format and maximize their performance within that image circle.
R. |
Robert, thank you - your explanation has finally made this whole lens/sensor thing "click" for me. Before, I had only a vague understanding. Thank you for explaining so clearly.
Gives me a lot more to think about, as I'm planning on buying a Canon 30D hopefully by the summer, and some lenses to go along with it. As I also own a Canon Elan II, I need to think about whether I want to buy new lenses that will also be useable on that camera or not. So understanding how this works helps a lot.
Thanks, Robert. :)
Liz
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 06:02:17 AM EDT.
