ef or ef-s lenses

brianp55

brianp55

Suspended / Banned
Messages
268
Name
brian
Edit My Images
Yes
hi, having recently puchased a canon 50d kit with the ef-s 17-85 lens, should i be looking to buy ef-s lenses or ef (does it matter). i have no specific photographic targets in mind but would like photo,s of any wildlife/birds motorsports/football ie anything. i am currently looking to start with a 55-250 f4-5.6 is as i don't want to spend too much more at the moment, would welcome your thoughts on this :help: thanks brian
 
you can use either on that body but ef only on the full frame bodies like the 5d or 1d/s bodies something to do with efs being to close to the mirror
 
I've got the EF-S 55-250 IS lens - it's a nice enough lens - certainly good for the price. Okay - it's never going to have the Image Quality of a L class lens, but for the half a dozen times i've used it in the last 9 months it's been fine. Sadly, I'm sure it's not going to be the best for the stuff you mention - all three types of 'togging tend to benefit from Fast (f2.8 if poss) glass but it should give you a taste of if those styles of shooting are for you. For me it's okay - most of my stuff tends to be landscapes etc, where the benefits of fast glass are not too important - mountains don't tend to move too quickly, and most of my stuff is shot from a tripod :)
 
EF-S lenses are fantastic.
I can't live without IS on longer lenses and it's the reason I will stick with a cropped sensor cameras.
Obviously on a tripod IS is not an issue but I also take a lot shots hand held and IS makes a big improvement for my photography.
The 55-250 f4-5.6 is a great lens for the money and there a lot of users here who use that lens.
 
hashcake said:
EF-S lenses are fantastic.
I can't live without IS on longer lenses and it's the reason I will stick with a cropped sensor cameras.
Obviously on a tripod IS is not an issue but I also take a lot shots hand held and IS makes a big improvement for my photography.
The 55-250 f4-5.6 is a great lens for the money and there a lot of users here who use that lens.
Click to expand...

ya know you get EF lenses with IS, often L IS lenses :D
 
david1701 said:
ya know you get EF lenses with IS, often L IS lenses :D
Click to expand...

Yes I know, the Canon 17-55mm EF-S IS f/2.8 is considered by many to be of L glass quality it's way over my budget let alone the prices of EF IS lenses.
 
cheers for all the responses, seems i need to spend a bit more dosh than i had hoped, :bonk::bang::cuckoo::thinking: it,s driving me crackers. have to start saving.
 
Tbh I don't think you have to spend more just yet.
I started off with a 55-250 for the same subjects and I find that in half decent light it does a good job. It gets you used to shooting the subjects in question at a reasonable focal length, once you really feel you need more reach and understand the shots then spend the cash.
I have reached a point with my 55-250 where I want more reach and would like to learn to shoot with a long prime (after much deliberation). So I am saving for a 300 f/4, but I intend on keeping the 55-250, it's a smahing lens for the money.
 
At shorter focal lengths, with EF lenses you are paying for full frame coverage that you cannot use on a crop format camera. Eg, EF 17-40L 4 compared to the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS - more range, a whole stop faster, plus IS. And if you want really wide angle, you won't get it with EF lenses, eg EF-S 10-22mm.

After about 55-60mm, the benefits quickly run out, so no EF-S lenses start at longer than this focal length.
 
It's not just digital full frame bodies EF-S won't fit, don't forget 35mm film SLRs either!
 
I think with the wildlife/birds/motorsport you are going to need a longer focal length than 250mm. You should be looking at around 400mm. The Sigma 120-400mm is very good value.
 
TheBigYin said:
I've got the EF-S 55-250 IS lens - it's a nice enough lens - certainly good for the price. Okay - it's never going to have the Image Quality of a L class lens, but for the half a dozen times i've used it in the last 9 months it's been fine. Sadly, I'm sure it's not going to be the best for the stuff you mention - all three types of 'togging tend to benefit from Fast (f2.8 if poss) glass but it should give you a taste of if those styles of shooting are for you. For me it's okay - most of my stuff tends to be landscapes etc, where the benefits of fast glass are not too important - mountains don't tend to move too quickly, and most of my stuff is shot from a tripod :)
Click to expand...

You dont really need an expensive 2.8 lens for any of the above (but it would be nice!). Of course it helps as its faster, but a 50D can easily cope with the average speed of the 55-250 (my 400D does) as everything you want to shoot will be outside. I use mine for a lot of motorsport and horse jumping, both very fast and the 55-250 has performed brilliantly. I can post sample shots if you want.

Inside shots benefit from the IS which is very good which compensate for a couple of stops.
 
odd jim said:
You dont really need an expensive 2.8 lens for any of the above (but it would be nice!). Of course it helps as its faster, but a 50D can easily cope with the average speed of the 55-250 (my 400D does) as everything you want to shoot will be outside. I use mine for a lot of motorsport and horse jumping, both very fast and the 55-250 has performed brilliantly. I can post sample shots if you want.

Inside shots benefit from the IS which is very good which compensate for a couple of stops.
Click to expand...

I never said 2.8 glass was essential - just that the 55-250 wasn't perfect for the job. It's an ideal way for the OP to have a try at the stuff and not have to sell a kidney. Plus, if they do decide to get some fancier glass in a while, they'll be able to sell the 55-250 pretty easily, as it has a great reputation and a lot of fans - me included! For my money it's perfectly good, and does everything I need of it. Yes, i'd LIKE something like a EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (as I've said - i'm not too bothered about "reach") not only for the better IQ, but that it'd work with my full frame cameras (35mm at the moment!) but I'd prefer not to spend champagne money when i'm on a beer budget.
 
I have the 40d with the EFs17-85 IS, but if I eventually want a full frame body it will have to go, so I have kind of decided to go for EF in future, just in case I do go FF, trying to future proof and make the changes as least cost as possible.
 
Mike54 said:
I have the 40d with the EFs17-85 IS, but if I eventually want a full frame body it will have to go, so I have kind of decided to go for EF in future, just in case I do go FF, trying to future proof and make the changes as least cost as possible.
Click to expand...

That's fine if you intend to change soon. But meanwhile, if you choose EF over EF-S lenses you are not making the most of the advantages crop format offers.

And when you do swap over, the range of coverage will have changed substantially and your lenses will behave quite differently. It just seems like an unnecessary fudge to me. You can sell good lenses very easily on here, as and when you need to change.

And welcome to TP :)
 
HoppyUK said:
That's fine if you intend to change soon. But meanwhile, if you choose EF over EF-S lenses you are not making the most of the advantages crop format offers
Click to expand...

sorry if i am being a pain but can you explain what the advantages crop format give on ef-s that are not available on ef. buying a 50d i have jumped in at the deep end :thinking: but i am enjoying learning and appreciate all the replies and joining in a great forum, by the way don't think i will upgrade in the near future, bri
 
brianp55 said:
sorry if i am being a pain but can you explain what the advantages crop format give on ef-s that are not available on ef. buying a 50d i have jumped in at the deep end :thinking: but i am enjoying learning and appreciate all the replies and joining in a great forum, by the way don't think i will upgrade in the near future, bri
Click to expand...

No worries Bri.

Lens designers have to compromise. The common choices include focal length range, low maximum f/number and format coverage. In addition to optical performance, build quality, size and weight, cost etc.

Crop format is much smaller than full frame, about 2.5x smaller, and released from the constraint of having to cover the whole of a bigger sensor, you can do more with the other things like focal length range and low f/number.

A good case in point is the EF 17-40mm f/4 L, compared to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. While the EF-S lens is not so solidly built and even costs a little more, you get substantially more range, a full stop lower f/number and IS thrown in.

The lower f/number is a big upside. If you want f/2.8 in an EF lens, you have to go for the 16-35mm f/2.8 L which not only has even less focal length rnage, but costs twice as much.

Looked at another way, compare the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS on a crop format camera, with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens on full frame. In terms of effective focal length range and aperture, they are almost identical but one costs £200 and fits in your pocket, while the other costs over £1k and is a substantial lump. Okay, not a direct comparison in lots of other ways, but I'm sure you get the point.

And at the extreme wide angle end, it is just not possible (or remotely affordable) to produce a full frame EF lens with a focal length range like the EF-S 10-22mm.

The benefits of the smaller format quickly run out over about 55-60mm, which is why Canon only makes EF lenses in longer focal lengths.
 
Chaz Photos said:
good value for money is teh Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens look around you might find one cheap at Jessops Price should be around the £175 ish but if you have more money let us know
Click to expand...

It's not good value for money.

Bought one, it's ****, you'll find this out very quickly, you'll try to convince everyone you try to off load it to within six months that it's a great lens :gag:
 
PerfectSpeed said:
It's not good value for money.

Bought one, it's ****, you'll find this out very quickly, you'll try to convince everyone you try to off load it to within six months that it's a great lens :gag:
Click to expand...

Well the APO one is good I can say that as I have one this is not to be confused with the Non APO one
 
brianp55 said:
hi, having recently puchased a canon 50d kit with the ef-s 17-85 lens, should i be looking to buy ef-s lenses or ef (does it matter). i have no specific photographic targets in mind but would like photo,s of any wildlife/birds motorsports/football ie anything. i am currently looking to start with a 55-250 f4-5.6 is as i don't want to spend too much more at the moment, would welcome your thoughts on this :help: thanks brian
Click to expand...

Personally the 55-250mm isn't really long enough, especially for wildlife / birds etc. As for motorsport, this will depend on the race circuit and the access you have to the track, if like most of us your behind the fences, that lens won't cut the mustard either.

Wildlife lenses tend to be 300mm and greater, so your really in to prime territory, like the 400mm f5.6, or 300mm f4 (or bigger but mega ££££) and Teleconvertors (1.4x or 2x TC), an alternative is the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. The problem being most of these lenses are around the grand mark.

As it seems you're on a budget, have a look at the canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS, great little lens, far better than the 55-250 and the extra ££ will be worth it. Not a bit fan of the new sigma zooms like sigma 120-400mm (don't rate them), but need must as budgets dictate, but if I had a choice, then I would pluck for the sigma 100-300mm f4, far out stripes sigma's current budget zoom offerings in performance, apart from the 120-300mm f2.8, but that mega £££ again.

So http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod60.html if you've got £380 to spend then the canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM would be the lens I would go for. If you have abit more budget then look at the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top