EF-S lenses are so over rated.

[Nick]

Do you agree as a photographer - one who shoots and prints. 

[Michael]

Nope. EF-S lenses such as using Sigma's 17-70 provides so much convenience and is easily affordable such that one who shoots family pictures and prints them in 4R photo albums for relatives won't really need so high end lenses.

[wf7850]

Nick , when u say over-rated, do u mean they do not perform as good as they claimed they do?

[Michael]

i think he meant that people are comparing it to "L" lenses...

like people saying the canon 17-55 is L

[Denosha]

If there were non-EF-S equivalents of the 17-55 F2.8 IS and 10-22 F3.5-4.5 with the same optical performance and same price I would definitely get the EF version instead. Unfortunately, they don't make anything like that so the EF-S ones are the best bet. I think it would be silly to skip them just because they are EF-S (unless of course you're soon going to abandon the 1.6x format altogether).

[wf7850]

agree with Denosha, if there are EF lenses that provides the same focal length, think we 1.6x users will surely go for them. however, there aren't and i honestly feel that Canon is simply coming from the marketing strategy point-of-view.

as to why pple always compare the 17-55 to a L is simply becos of it's price tag, optically wise i cant comment as i have not used a L be4.

But i can think of one field whereby the 17-55 wins any L lenses from the very first day - u need to buy the hood seperately...!!! 

[Michael]

i do agree... the 10-22 equivalent for canon, there is none...

however, for my full frame camera, that 10-22 equivalent becomes the 17-40L, you are using a 10mm because you're on a 1.6x crop factor. the main punishing factor for avoiding the EF-S is due to my film camera... no choice but to stick to the EF mounts

17-55 however, i think the 17-40 can counter it. which is why there is so many threads on the market for it.

but of course, don't ever forget the third parties... EF-S? nah, Sigma...

[Tetanus]

I agree with Michael.

I think the advantages of EF-S lenses, in that Canon has to only design such lenses so that optical performance is maximized in the sweet spot, puts EF-S as a bridge in the gap between normal EF lenses and L lenses.

As someone who started out with a 300D, followed by a 30D, before I went full-frame, the availability of EF-S lenses was something I was glad for; they are attractively priced and are big bangs for the buck.

I just don't like it that Canon chose to mark the focal lengths on EF-S lenses without taking the 1.6x crop factor into consideration. But I'm just being picky…

[squarepumpkin]

I just don't like it that Canon chose to mark the focal lengths on EF-S lenses without taking the 1.6x crop factor into consideration. But I'm just being picky…

Nobody does that and if they did; there will be a lot of confusion, especially among new users.

[Michael]

I could only wish Canon would label the 35mm equivalents on their EF-S lenses...

[Nick]

Let me get it straight, there are good EF-S lenses but don't compare the 17-55IS to the 24-70 and say the 17-55 is equal or better in IQ due to sharpness. That's what the majority of people who worship the 17-55IS go around spreading misinformation. IQ is dependant of image colours and distortion. That's where the 17-55IS loses out. It the directly to print images that should make it to the reviews and not those that have been run through photoshop. It's no longer a fair comparison.

[wf7850]

Nobody does that and if they did; there will be a lot of confusion, especially among new users.

why not? as EF-S cant go on FF bodies anyway.... i tend to think that it will confuse the 'old birds' more... 

[Michael]

why not? as EF-S cant go on FF bodies anyway...

i don't think so... i've seen people manage to force it in... 

[wf7850]

i don't think so... i've seen people manage to force it in... 

errr... okie... i should have said EF-S are not meant for FF bodies... 

i tot it was dangerous to mount a EF-S lens onto FF bodies? read somewhere that the mirror will hit the back of the lens and.......... 

[Michael]

errr... okie... i should have said EF-S are not meant for FF bodies... 

i tot it was dangerous to mount a EF-S lens onto FF bodies? read somewhere that the mirror will hit the back of the lens and.......... 

some did manage to modify their EF-S mounts, shortening it so the mirror wont hit into it