Update to EF-S lenses, what does the S do?

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

I wanted to take a second to acknowledge all the helpful people on this NG.
As a result of replies to this question, and another titled "Buying a 20D,
should I consider a non Canon lens", I made my purchase on May 13. As a
direct result of the responses to my questions, I took another VERY hard
look at the kind of pictures I was *truly going to take* as opposed to
*might want to take*, did additional research until my brain exploded, and
purchased the 20D with the Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM lens. This combo is a
thing of beauty, well worth the couple of hundred dollars extra. Several
hundred pictures later I'm getting the hang of it, and having a blast! The
squirrels are being very cooperative...they make great moving targets.

Thanks all

WW

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

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in message
news:EdQhe.1362328$6l.1015569@pd7tw2no...
> I wanted to take a second to acknowledge all the helpful people on this
NG.
> As a result of replies to this question, and another titled "Buying a 20D,
> should I consider a non Canon lens", I made my purchase on May 13. As a
> direct result of the responses to my questions, I took another VERY hard
> look at the kind of pictures I was *truly going to take* as opposed to
> *might want to take*, did additional research until my brain exploded, and
> purchased the 20D with the Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM lens. This combo is a
> thing of beauty, well worth the couple of hundred dollars extra. Several
> hundred pictures later I'm getting the hang of it, and having a blast! The
> squirrels are being very cooperative...they make great moving targets.
>
> Thanks all
>
> WW
>

Good choice! I have also found this NG to be of great help (and try to give
back with whatever info I can). I had this lens, but sold it to get the
70-200 f/2.8L IS (I wanted the extra stop and the IS allows me to go
hand-held much more). Sometimes I wish I had the f/4 for the smaller size
and weight, but both are great lenses. Once you go "L", its hard to go back.

Do you have anything on the wider end, or are you mainly shooting from 10ft
away ;-) On the wide-end the choice is tough:

- There is ofcourse the EF-S 10-22 which I have yet to research. Its not a
fast lens
- There is the 16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L (again, for fast, need to spend
$$$)

The problem with our cameras is that darned 1.6x FOV crop. Canon need to
come out with a 10-22 f2.8L!!

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:IUShe.95728$h6.15888@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>>
>
> Good choice! I have also found this NG to be of great help (and try to
> give
> back with whatever info I can). I had this lens, but sold it to get the
> 70-200 f/2.8L IS (I wanted the extra stop and the IS allows me to go
> hand-held much more). Sometimes I wish I had the f/4 for the smaller size
> and weight, but both are great lenses. Once you go "L", its hard to go
> back.
>
> Do you have anything on the wider end, or are you mainly shooting from
> 10ft
> away ;-) On the wide-end the choice is tough:
>
> - There is ofcourse the EF-S 10-22 which I have yet to research. Its not a
> fast lens
> - There is the 16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L (again, for fast, need to
> spend
> $$$)

I had considered breaking the bank and getting the 70-200, that you now
own...then I discovered how much the darn thing weighs. I know myself well
enough to know I'd be looking for excuses to not be lugging that beast
around...plus, I'm pretty much a daylight, outdoors, kind of picture taker,
so I see this as a *very nice* compromise.

I actually think the odds favour my next lens being a Macro...and I see the
research on that giving me another brain tumour...but it'll be worth it in
the end I'm sure.

Something wider? I see that as being my number 3 lens, if at all. I'm not
sure I'd use it enough to justify the expense...but ya never know...

WW

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:YAUhe.96774$h6.57634@tornado.texas.rr.com...

> (snippage)

> A macro is also on the top of my list. But I dont think you need a brain
> tumor. There are not that many Canon macros to choose from and they are
> not
> super expensive (except the L ofcourse):
>
> - EF 180 f3.5L ($1239 @ B&H) - heavy, expensive, but best sharpness/color
> - EF 100 f2.8 ($469 @ B&H)
> - EF-S 60 f2.8 ($449 @ B&H) - advantage being size/weight and 1:1 over
> the
> 100mm

Question for you, if you know. I read someplace that one advantage of the
EF-S 60 is that is has a decent depth of field, and that you can maintain a
reasonable distance from your subject...both of these factors are important
to me.

WW

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

"WormWood" <noone@none.net> wrote in
news:afUhe.1363013$8l.742386@pd7tw1no:

> I actually think the odds favour my next lens being a Macro...and I
> see the research on that giving me another brain tumour...but it'll be
> worth it in the end I'm sure.

Don't overlook the Canon 100mm macro, I have read many comments about how
incredibly sharp this lens is. It is also well constructed with good AF
and a good lens in every respect.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"