EF-S lenses are so over rated.

[Tetanus]

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

Exactly what I meant, too. Recently, I had to look into some Zoom-Nikkor lenses for a friend, and was wondering whether the focal lengths on those lenses were for DX or FX. It's easy to forget you have to do some mental arithmetics especially when you're comparing a lens for full-frame and one for FOVCF side-by-side.

Like squarepumpkin said, EF-S focal lengths can sometimes confuse the "old birds"…

[benny]

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.......... 

William,

Check this thread out. 

Cheers,

[Denosha]

Maybe I should do a series of test shots comparing the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS vs EF 17-40mm F4 L vs EF 24-70mm F2.8 L vs EF 35mm F1.4 L all @ 35mm at various apertures and let you guys do a "blind taste test" to see if you can really see the difference.  Apart from the 35L, i suspect think the other 3 lenses will be rather hard to distinguish from each other.

[benny]

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

I don't agree. I actually enjoy using all my EF-S mount lenses and I think they are great for what they are intended for. However, these lenses should be evaluated in their own right.

...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...

I agree that a lot of folks just strangely assume a wide aperture of f/2.8 would put ANY lens in the higher class. It's not always the case. Other examples will include 20/24/28/135 mm, which are all available in f/2.8, but not designated as L lenses. As Klose correctly point out, the comparison should also take into consideration Sharpness, Contrast and Distortion and camparison should be made with an unprocessed printed image.

I know a lot of folks condemn the hell out of the EF-S mount and swear never to use it when it was introduced with Canon's EOS 300D. Some of these chaps are still using EF-S mount bodies despite upgrading 3 time already. Whilst they will borrow a EF-S 10-22 to use, they will never buy it. Most common reason is "just in case I'm upgrading to Full Frame or 1.3 X Crop". Lame.

Whilst the sweet spot is maximized as the weakest part of the lenses are normally around the edge of an image, the EF-S mount does not give users any advantage over EF mount. It's the crop factor on the body. However, EF-S lenses are generally more compact and makes great travelling companions. As such, I wouldn't not consider it as "a bridge in the gap between normal EF lenses and L lenses". I would just consider it as a alternative to the EF lenses.

But one thing cannot be denied...the performance to cost ratio of the EF-S 18-55 mm is great!

Cheers,

[wf7850]

William,

Check this thread out. 

Cheers,

Yo benny, did u just mount the lens to your 1DsMkII and fire off? or u did measure the allowable space inside the camera to ensure the mirror will not hit the back of the lens?

cos if it is the earlier, i can only think of one reason - i.e. to give yourself (or your other half) every reason why u need to get the 1DsMkIII....!!!