Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EF-S lenses, What does the S do?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 12:18:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I am in the process of buying a 20D, and am now looking at lens options. I
do not trust manufacturers to not suddenly drop any given standard they have
developed in favour of a 'new improved' standard. Out of their selection of
X-number of lenses, Canon only has 4 EF-S models...that is NOT very many,
and it strikes me that they could drop EF-S camera bodies as quickly as they
invented them. Consequently, I am very hesitant to put a lot of money into S
lenses, only to find I cannot get a camera body to fit them a few years down
the road, because someone at Canon suddenly decided the EF-T style was
'better'...so all new bodies now take T style lenses...or R or Q or
who-the-hell-knows-what-letter.

I am, therefore, seriously considering only buying EF lenses.

I understand the reason the S lenses only fit the 20D and Rebel bodies, but
what I don't understand (and cannot find explained anyplace) is precisely
what advantage an S lens has over a plain old EF lens.

I guess the simplest way to ask the question (so I get an answer that hits
my question dead center) is to put it this way. If Canon were to build two
lenses, for the sake of argument let's say they were both 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS
USM models (both using the same materials), but one was an EF and the other
an EF-S design, what would be the advantage of the newer S style lens?

My current level of understanding is that Canon built the S lenses "just
because they could"...so they'd have a marketable package for these specific
digital cameras...or maybe so the owners of a 20D bodies could somehow feel
exclusive because they could use S lenses and the owners of a 1D bodies
couldn't. Seems to make about that much sense..so I 'must' be missing
something...mustn't I?

Thanks

WW

More about : lenses

May 10, 2005 12:18:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

WormWood wrote:


>
> I understand the reason the S lenses only fit the 20D and Rebel bodies,
> but what I don't understand (and cannot find explained anyplace) is
> precisely what advantage an S lens has over a plain old EF lens.

Smaller image circles allows the designers to totally forget about the
problems involved with good resolution at the corners of a larger full
frame lens. This way they don't have to give up some center resolution to
get decent corner performance and also allows them to come up shorter focal
lengths with better performance and speed.

All lens designs are a compromise and as the image circle gets larger, they
have to compromise some center resolution (or contrast or something) to
keep the corners sharp. It's why 35mm lenses are normally sharper than
their medium format counterparts and large format lenses aren't as sharp as
medium format ones. A smaller format requires higher resolving optics to
keep performance at ~ the same level.


>
> My current level of understanding is that Canon built the S lenses "just
> because they could"...so they'd have a marketable package for these
> specific digital cameras...or maybe so the owners of a 20D bodies could
> somehow feel exclusive because they could use S lenses and the owners of a
> 1D bodies couldn't.


That's not it at all.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 12:24:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 20:18:55 GMT, WormWood <noone@none.net> wrote:
>
> I understand the reason the S lenses only fit the 20D and Rebel bodies, but
> what I don't understand (and cannot find explained anyplace) is precisely
> what advantage an S lens has over a plain old EF lens.

My limited understanding of this is that lens design is easier if
you can put the rear element closer to the film plane, especially
for shorter focal lengths. (This is part of why rangefinder lenses
are so good.) By giving the designers some extra room at the rear
of the lens, EF-S mount IN THEORY makes possible a better lens for
the same price, or a similar lens for less money.

Sorry for the handwaving above. I'll be interested to see if anyone
posts a better answer (i.e. with more concrete details on how the
extra space in back affects the lens construction).

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:31:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ea074F20gv2U1@individual.net...

> Smaller image circles allows the designers to totally forget about the
> problems involved with good resolution at the corners of a larger full
> frame lens. This way they don't have to give up some center resolution to
> get decent corner performance and also allows them to come up shorter
> focal
> lengths with better performance and speed.
>
> All lens designs are a compromise and as the image circle gets larger,
> they
> have to compromise some center resolution (or contrast or something) to
> keep the corners sharp. It's why 35mm lenses are normally sharper than
> their medium format counterparts and large format lenses aren't as sharp
> as
> medium format ones. A smaller format requires higher resolving optics to
> keep performance at ~ the same level.

So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and a
similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of t'other as
to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either version?

WW
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:31:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> writes:

> So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and a
> similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of t'other as
> to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either
> version?

All things being equal, you'd want the EF lens because it's compatible
with more cameras, and will continue to be compatible in future
generations of EOS cameras.

But here's the rub: You'll find that short-focal length EF-S lenses at
are a hell of a lot cheaper than full EF lenses of the same focal
length and aperture.

So you're making a cost tradeoff.

If you trust that EF-S isn't going to be a flash in the pan on the EOS
road map, and you don't have confidence that Canon one day will make a
full size 24x36mm image sensor in a body you can afford (with which
EF-S will not be compatible, by its very nature of leveraging the
smaller APS sized imager)... then go EF-S and save the money now, earn
interest on it to buy different glass when and if.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:53:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:p APfe.1293708$Xk.824168@pd7tw3no...

> I guess the simplest way to ask the question (so I get an answer that hits
> my question dead center) is to put it this way. If Canon were to build two
> lenses, for the sake of argument let's say they were both 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS
> USM models (both using the same materials), but one was an EF and the
other
> an EF-S design, what would be the advantage of the newer S style lens?

The advantage for Canon, is that the back of the lens is closer to the
sensor, than is possible in their larger frame cameras (film and digital).
This is an especially big advantage when they are building wide-angle
lenses. It would be very expensive to build a 10-22mm lens that was not an
EF-s lens, though it certainly is possible.

If you want a true wide-angle lens for the 20D, you get either the Canon
10-22mm EF-s, or you buy one of the Sigma lenses. Neither is an ideal
solution, but at least the Sigma could possibly work on a future Canon
camera with a larger sensor.

For professionals that need wide-angle capability, with a professional
quality lens, and professional quality body, they will be spending big bucks
for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, and the Canon 16-35 L pro lens; there are no
alternatives.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:18:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:BEQfe.1294240$Xk.365648@pd7tw3no...
>
> So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and
> a similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of t'other
> as to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either version?

My knowledge is increasing by leaps and bounds. I guess my problem is that I
*don't* trust Canon to continue making EF-S compatible cameras. It is one
thing to be left holding a box of Sony's Beta VCR tapes...it is quite
another to be left with a mittful of lenses worth $3000.00+.

Now that I better understand this lens game I can make an informed
decision...which is exactly what I was aiming for.

Thanks to you all, for the help.

WW
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:31:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:18:10 GMT, "WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote:

>
>"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
>news:BEQfe.1294240$Xk.365648@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and
>> a similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of t'other
>> as to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either version?
>
>My knowledge is increasing by leaps and bounds. I guess my problem is that I
>*don't* trust Canon to continue making EF-S compatible cameras. It is one
>thing to be left holding a box of Sony's Beta VCR tapes...it is quite
>another to be left with a mittful of lenses worth $3000.00+.

Which is why I don't buy them. You would also be left with having to
flog them on eBay if you moved up to a full frame sensor model.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:32:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 21:31:13 GMT, "WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote:

>
>"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3ea074F20gv2U1@individual.net...
>
>> Smaller image circles allows the designers to totally forget about the
>> problems involved with good resolution at the corners of a larger full
>> frame lens. This way they don't have to give up some center resolution to
>> get decent corner performance and also allows them to come up shorter
>> focal
>> lengths with better performance and speed.
>>
>> All lens designs are a compromise and as the image circle gets larger,
>> they
>> have to compromise some center resolution (or contrast or something) to
>> keep the corners sharp. It's why 35mm lenses are normally sharper than
>> their medium format counterparts and large format lenses aren't as sharp
>> as
>> medium format ones. A smaller format requires higher resolving optics to
>> keep performance at ~ the same level.
>
>So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and a
>similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of t'other as
>to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either version?
>

There is a very compelling reason to buy EF lenses. They don't make
"L" lenses in the EF-S line.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:47:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I am not a strong supporter of EF-S at all. However, Canon has publicly
stated that the 1.6 crop factor camera is here to stay in the entry level
and entry pro level DSLRs. If this is the case than EF-S will probably be
around for a while.

The advantage to EF-S over EF is, for the most part, at the wide end. It is
easier to design a wide lens when the rear element can be closer to the
sensor and illuminating a smaller sensor, and this is what EF-S allows.
Along with potentially lighter and smaller construction. Above a certain
focal length, probably about 60 to 100mm, EF-S just does not give you any
real advantage, other than a potential weight savings. My guess on this,
and it is just a guess, is that you will not see any lenses over 100mm that
are EF-S in the next couple years, unless it is a zoom and part of the
coverage is below 100mm, say a 28-200mm zoom as an example.

If there are two lenses you want, one an EF-S and one an EF, and they have
the features you want and cost you want, there is no reason to select the
EF-S.

If you ever think you may want a film camera, or a different crop digital,
that can use your lenses then EF-S is right out. I rather doubt Canon will
ever make an EF-S film camera, although it would not be impossible, as the
EF-S design would work with an APS format film design.

By the way, there are not 6 EF-S lenses at this time...only 4. The 17-85mm
IS, 60mm f2.8 macro EF-S, the 10-22mm EF-S, and the 18-55mm EF-S. The
18-55mm EF-S is often listed as "plain" or "USM" but in fact Canon has
always claimed this lens is USM, and both styles carry the same Canon part
number. I honestly believe, but do not know for sure, that the "USM"
version of this lens is just the same lens repackaged, with "USM"
prominently on the box.

C!

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:ScSfe.1295978$6l.28514@pd7tw2no...
>
> "WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
> news:BEQfe.1294240$Xk.365648@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and
>> a similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of
>> t'other as to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either
>> version?
>
> My knowledge is increasing by leaps and bounds. I guess my problem is that
> I *don't* trust Canon to continue making EF-S compatible cameras. It is
> one thing to be left holding a box of Sony's Beta VCR tapes...it is quite
> another to be left with a mittful of lenses worth $3000.00+.
>
> Now that I better understand this lens game I can make an informed
> decision...which is exactly what I was aiming for.
>
> Thanks to you all, for the help.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:47:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colic wrote:
> I am not a strong supporter of EF-S at all.

<snip>

>
> By the way, there are not 6 EF-S lenses at this time...only 4. The
> 17-85mm IS, 60mm f2.8 macro EF-S, the 10-22mm EF-S, and the 18-55mm
> EF-S. The 18-55mm EF-S is often listed as "plain" or "USM" but in
> fact Canon has always claimed this lens is USM, and both styles
> carry
> the same Canon part number. I honestly believe, but do not know for
> sure, that the "USM" version of this lens is just the same lens
> repackaged, with "USM" prominently on the box.
>

Addicted as I was to the 19mm equiv on a Nikon CP5000 with convertor,
the 10-22 EF-s was a must. Unless a few grams in weight and a few mm
in dimensions became critical, I would not even consider another EF-S.

I have bought two Canon kits with the 18-55: first in December 2004,
second in April just past. First lens and second lens seem identical
except: second has "II" marked after the range; first came in a
separate box; second came packed in the same box as the RebeXT.

The lenses seem to act the same, feel the same, look the same, sound
the same. Except for the "II".

The 18- 55 lenses _do_ seem to make folks' faces look good, tone-wise
and texture-wise. Especially with fill flash.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:18:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> writes:
> "WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
> news:BEQfe.1294240$Xk.365648@pd7tw3no...
> >
> > So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and
> > a similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of t'other
> > as to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either version?
>
> My knowledge is increasing by leaps and bounds. I guess my problem is that I
> *don't* trust Canon to continue making EF-S compatible cameras. It is one
> thing to be left holding a box of Sony's Beta VCR tapes...it is quite
> another to be left with a mittful of lenses worth $3000.00+.
>
> Now that I better understand this lens game I can make an informed
> decision...which is exactly what I was aiming for.
>
> Thanks to you all, for the help.

No problems. Then again, I still have 2 functioning Beta Hifi
VCR's.

I also own Sigma EOS mount lenses I can't use at other than f/2.8 on
my 300D. Cest la vie.


--
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
May 10, 2005 4:58:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

WormWood wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3ea074F20gv2U1@individual.net...
>
>> Smaller image circles allows the designers to totally forget about the
>> problems involved with good resolution at the corners of a larger full
>> frame lens. This way they don't have to give up some center resolution to
>> get decent corner performance and also allows them to come up shorter
>> focal
>> lengths with better performance and speed.
>>
>> All lens designs are a compromise and as the image circle gets larger,
>> they
>> have to compromise some center resolution (or contrast or something) to
>> keep the corners sharp. It's why 35mm lenses are normally sharper than
>> their medium format counterparts and large format lenses aren't as sharp
>> as
>> medium format ones. A smaller format requires higher resolving optics to
>> keep performance at ~ the same level.
>
> So, as an end user, if there is a quality EF lens that fits my needs, and
> a similarly suitable EF-S model, it becomes 6 of one-half dozen of t'other
> as to which I buy. There is no compelling reason to choose either version?
>


Reread what I wrote, you seemed to miss the point totally.. In theory at
least, they should be able to make the EF-S lens perform better on a APS
sized sensor than a EF one can.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:54:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

WormWood wrote:

> My knowledge is increasing by leaps and bounds. I guess my problem is that I
> *don't* trust Canon to continue making EF-S compatible cameras.

Actually, they almost certainly will continue making EF-s compatible
cameras, but at the same time they will also almost certainly make a
prosumer camera with a larger sensor that cannot take EF-s lenses.

Canon lenses have pretty good resale value, around 60-70% of the street
price (and I have seen lenses sold on CraigsList for more than the
street price for the same lens sells for new). So you still may be
better off with an EF-s lens for now. It's really only the super
wide-angle zoom where the EF-s lens is necessary.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:28:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:wnVfe.216$OU1.168@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Snippage

.. So you still may be better off with an EF-s lens for now. It's really only
the super
> wide-angle zoom where the EF-s lens is necessary.

Now that I better understand the ins and outs of lenses, and considering
such things as range of use (I'd like a jack-of-all-trades lens for general
carrying around), size/weight, price, etc., I think my first lens will be
the 17-85 EF-S. From that point on, as my needs/wants grow, I will go for EF
models.

WW
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:37:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

WormWood wrote:

> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:wnVfe.216$OU1.168@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Snippage
>
> . So you still may be better off with an EF-s lens for now. It's really only
> the super
>
>>wide-angle zoom where the EF-s lens is necessary.
>
>
> Now that I better understand the ins and outs of lenses, and considering
> such things as range of use (I'd like a jack-of-all-trades lens for general
> carrying around), size/weight, price, etc., I think my first lens will be
> the 17-85 EF-S. From that point on, as my needs/wants grow, I will go for EF
> models.

If I were starting from scratch, I think that I'd get the EF-s 17-85,
the EF-s 10-22, and the EF 75-300 IS. For my film camera, I already had
a 20-35, 28-105, and 100-300.

In the even that I wanted to go to a future full frame (or larger frame)
sensor, I would sell the EF-s lenses on craigslist for at least 75% of
what I paid (it's not my problem that people pay so much for used
stuff!). Buying the Sigma EF wide angle lens would be worse than getting
the EF-s lens, and selling it later, since if I was going higher end, I
wouldn't want the Sigma lens (assuming that it would even work on future
Canon body, which is not assured).
!