Troy, the point of EF-s is that, because the image circle doesn't need need to cover a 35mm wide frame, they can be made smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
sagecoast wrote:
Doh, I overlooked that one. But would really love a 14 mm or so 1.8.
1. Save from aperture, the 10-22 has nothing lacking in terms of IQ.
2. How many do you think will actually buy one if they make it?
troy12n wrote:
I dont know what the point would be.
Honestly, the entire point of EF-S escapes me. They are effectively locking out any 1 or 5 series owners plus all film camers owners.
Not that there are really any GOOD EF-S lenses anyway. The only halfway decent ones are the 17-85 and 17-55 and even those are cheaply made
FWIW, I traded two L lenses (17-40 and 24-105) for two EF-S lenses (10-22 and 17-55) and I am selling a 35/1.4 because when having and using both, I almost always reach for the 17-55.
They are so good that I decided I will keep an EF-S body for a VERY long time. FF? 1.3X? They will be an addition, not a replacement.
Cheaply made? Well, they are not as good as L's but the BQ is still very good. And when I get IQ level that equals or even surpass L lenses and a relatively cheap price I am gladly accepting this.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Edited by Yakim Peled on Aug 24, 2008 at 12:47 AM GMT
there are good, fast primes at 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135, 200 and above
What is missing from the EF-S perspective? The 60 made sense becuase it's like a 100mm macro on the 1.6X crop cams. Maybe a good sharp, moderately priced 16mm f/2?
troy12n wrote:
Honestly, the entire point of EF-S escapes me.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Troy, the point of EF-s is that, because the image circle doesn't need need to cover a 35mm wide frame, they can be made smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
Actually, the S means Short Retrofocus. It means that the lenses take advantage of the shorter mirror on the 1.6 crop factor cameras. This is especially useful for wideangles.
On rangefinder cameras where there is no mirror, wideangle lens can extend far into the chamber. SLRs and DSLRs have mirrors, so wideangle lenses need a retrofocus design, which is like a reverse telephoto lens. The shorter the mirror, the less often a retrofocus design is needed, and the simpler and smaller the retrofocus design needs to be when one is necessary.
The image circle is smaller so, as Beaumont says, that reduces the size of lenses too.
Not that there are really any GOOD EF-S lenses anyway. The only halfway decent ones are the 17-85 and 17-55 and even those are cheaply made
Hmm, I own the 17-55 as well as the 24-105 L, and the heft, solidness in the hand, mechanical precision and AF speed are about the same. Save the cosmetics, the barrels are very similar in materials and design. Sure the 17-55 lacks the dust seals of the L zoom but they're in the same ball park in terms of IQ and construction. Compare the 17-55 to my 28-135 IS and it feels more like a L series optic.
Personally I wouldn't buy an EF-s prime as I also shoot FF. I wasn't going to buy any EF-s at all, but the 17-55 was such a perfect travel lens for my 40D I made an exception. And damn it's good. Better than my 17-40 L and EF 50 1.4 USM.
