Image Quality difference between EF-S and L lenses?

smr

smr

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,047
Name
Joel
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I have a Canon 80D and a 10-18mm EFS lens, which is imho a great lens. But I'm just wondering, if say I bought a 16-35 2.8 or f4 L lens what difference would I see in terms of IQ?

I know all of the advantages of an L lens generally, insofar as build quality, weather sealing etc. etc. but just on Image Quality alone what real difference is there - if shooting the same scene in exactly the same conditions - ie. I'd take a shot with the 10-18 and then immediately take the same shot with the L lens both at say f/11 ISO 100, just how much better is the IQ?
 
Probably no difference at all.
On your camera with an L lens at f11 you are only using the middle of image circle so you would not see the benefits of the improved edge sharpness at f2.8 that you would get using the L on full frame
 
On the same camera efs vs ef:
You'd almost certainly notice less vignette with an ef lens.
Better edge sharpness.
In my experience, better contrast and colour rendition.
 
and probably notice whatever difference when viewed or printed in a larger size,if not i doubt it would be very noticeable
 
Ok,

So if I bought a Canon 6D and used the 16-35 f/4 on that at f11 ISO 100 for a landscape shot, and then took the same shot moments later with my Canon 80D and 10-18mm at the same aperture and the same scene - what would the difference in image quality be then? Aside from the weather sealing and robustness etc. etc. of the L series lens I'm trying to establish if you're also paying hundreds of pounds more for vastly improved image quality.

I am wondering whether to get a 6D and a lens such as the 16-35 for landscape photography and I'm wondering if the difference I'd see in image quality would be so much so that it's be obviously noticeable.
 
You'd notice a difference in depth of field, with the 6D giving a shallower depth of field (more bokeh) wide open than your 80D. I'd also think the 6D would be less noisy in low light/high ISO situations. The 6D Mk1 is a very nice camera and the only thing that would tempt me to sell mine would be an upgrade to a 5D Mk iv.

As for comparing the two, do you know anyone local to you that's got a 6D? If so, perhaps arrange a meet-up and do a comparison - but make sure the settings on both cameras are the same and bear in mind that EF-S lenses won't fit full frame Canon DSLRs. (y)
 
Last edited:
On the same camera - probably not so much and you'd lose the wide end. So no choice really unless you want to also a FF body to the order.

As far as ultra wide zooms go 16-35 f/4 copy I own could be described as near perfect. Distortion, sharpness, sunstars, colour, contrast, everything. I've got no idea how good yours is.
 
smr said:
I'm wondering if the difference I'd see in image quality would be so much so that it's be obviously noticeable.
Click to expand...
In a a word: No. There would be differences but in my experience they're subtle and very few photographers would be able to tell the difference between your hypothetical landscape shots.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
In a a word: No. There would be differences but in my experience they're subtle and very few photographers would be able to tell the difference between your hypothetical landscape shots.
Click to expand...

I noticed a marked difference between DX & FX when I made the switch.

But then again I saw artifacts in the Fuji RAWs that other people couldn't (or wouldn't).
 
smr said:
Ok,

So if I bought a Canon 6D and used the 16-35 f/4 on that at f11 ISO 100 for a landscape shot, and then took the same shot moments later with my Canon 80D and 10-18mm at the same aperture and the same scene - what would the difference in image quality be then? Aside from the weather sealing and robustness etc. etc. of the L series lens I'm trying to establish if you're also paying hundreds of pounds more for vastly improved image quality.

I am wondering whether to get a 6D and a lens such as the 16-35 for landscape photography and I'm wondering if the difference I'd see in image quality would be so much so that it's be obviously noticeable.
Click to expand...
Ignore my comments please.
I thought you meant ef vs efs on an 80D
 
It may be worth noting that DLA sets in much sooner on an 80D than a 6D.
 
soupdragon said:
It may be worth noting that DLA sets in much sooner on an 80D than a 6D.
Click to expand...
I didn't previously understand that the Disability Living Allowance applies to photography. This will need much time to grock fully. :cool:
 
Depends entirely on the lens.

The EFS 18-55 f2.8 is a brilliant bit of glass and blows the 17-40 out the park which would be the closest bit of glass without going all or on the 16-35 f2.8 which falls short from a reach perspective but is a slight step up in IQ for a beastly addition of cash.
 
You're comparing a sub-£200 lens with a £900 lens. Not an entire fair comparison.
A fairer comparison would (as @Andrew Moore suggests) to compare the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 with the EF 17-40mm f4 L. Both are of a similar age and now can be had for similar prices secondhand.

The Canon 10-18mm lens is essentially the same quality glass and body/construction as the cheap 18-55mm kit lenses. So obviously the L lens is going to be better for sharpness, contrast, chromatic abberation, flare, etc.

I was using the Canon 60D with a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, which was a substantial upgrade from the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera. It was sharp and contrasty. But when I sold that and bought the Canon 24-105 f4 L, the image quality was a world away even on the same 60D crop sensor body. (At the time I also has the Sigma 10-20mm for wide angles and found that I hardly used it as it couldn't keep up in terms of IQ).

I did then buy a Canon 6D (as you talk about doing) and then the 24-105L showed it's full potential. Able to go wide at true 24mm (equivalent field of view to 15mm on crop) and gives great bokeh at f4. The 6D is a great camera, low light performance is great, though you might find the AF slightly less advanced than the 80D, not that that is a problem for landscapes.

As for using a 16-35mm L on your crop sensor body, it'll be great, the image quality will be better, but whether you'll see it on prints or unless you zoom to 100% is debatable. Is it £700 better? Hmm.

Is it worth getting an L series lens for use on a crop body? That's upto you and your circumstances. In my case, I bought my L lens knowing that I would be moving to full frame shortly after and after that I'm quite picky about lenses that aren't as sharp or well made.
 
smr said:
Ok,

So if I bought a Canon 6D and used the 16-35 f/4 on that at f11 ISO 100 for a landscape shot, and then took the same shot moments later with my Canon 80D and 10-18mm at the same aperture and the same scene - what would the difference in image quality be then? Aside from the weather sealing and robustness etc. etc. of the L series lens I'm trying to establish if you're also paying hundreds of pounds more for vastly improved image quality.

I am wondering whether to get a 6D and a lens such as the 16-35 for landscape photography and I'm wondering if the difference I'd see in image quality would be so much so that it's be obviously noticeable.
Click to expand...
It largely depends on what you do with the image. Viewing the image on a tablet, you will see no difference in IQ at all. Printing at A2 size I would hope the L series lens would give a visible improvement in IQ.
 
At f/8 or f/11, I doubt there'd be any major difference IMHO. The 10-18mm is a belting little lens in its own right.
 
smr said:
Hi all,

I have a Canon 80D and a 10-18mm EFS lens, which is imho a great lens. But I'm just wondering, if say I bought a 16-35 2.8 or f4 L lens what difference would I see in terms of IQ?

I know all of the advantages of an L lens generally, insofar as build quality, weather sealing etc. etc. but just on Image Quality alone what real difference is there - if shooting the same scene in exactly the same conditions - ie. I'd take a shot with the 10-18 and then immediately take the same shot with the L lens both at say f/11 ISO 100, just how much better is the IQ?
Click to expand...

Basically no difference. The pros and cons of EF-S vs EF lenses don't really include image quality when used on the same camera.

smr said:
Ok,

So if I bought a Canon 6D and used the 16-35 f/4 on that at f11 ISO 100 for a landscape shot, and then took the same shot moments later with my Canon 80D and 10-18mm at the same aperture and the same scene - what would the difference in image quality be then? Aside from the weather sealing and robustness etc. etc. of the L series lens I'm trying to establish if you're also paying hundreds of pounds more for vastly improved image quality.

I am wondering whether to get a 6D and a lens such as the 16-35 for landscape photography and I'm wondering if the difference I'd see in image quality would be so much so that it's be obviously noticeable.
Click to expand...

Completely different question, and the difference is in the larger full-frame format rather than the lens. Larger sensor means higher sharpness, less noise, greater dynamic range, and a reduction of about one stop in depth-of-field at same aperture (when subject is framed the same). Whether or not these differences are significant is a question only you can answer.
 
I own a 7D original and have crop sigma lens 17-70 contemporary crop factor lens, EF 70-300 IS USM, EF 70-300 L IS USM, EF 24-105L IS USM, EF 100 macro.
My non L 70-300 Is no way as sharp as my 70-300L
My sigma 17-70 has better IQ than the Canon EF 24-105L
IMO the standard Canon kit lens is ok IQ and sigma make some pretty Damn good lenses now. I use my EF L lenses if I want extra reach on a shoot though my go to lens is always my sigma 17-70

The EF lenses do not give me as good Bokha as the sigma 17-70 and EF lens tend not to have vignetting . My 24-105L IQ is not as sigma 17-70 !
So the OP to get a like for like comparison you will need to get as slready mentioned above a 6D along side the 80D with comparable lenses using the same settings.
As I have do I d third party lens manufacturers make some pretty decent glass now.
 
There is no answer because every lens if different and you cant say all L lenses have X amount of IQ and all cheaper lenses have Y amount of IQ.

I had an 17-40 L and I could see tons of purple fringing on trees, the cheapest of cheap 50mm prime didn't.
 
ABTog said:
compare the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 with the EF 17-40mm f4 L. Both are of a similar age and now can be had for similar prices secondhand.
Click to expand...

I understand what you’re trying to say, but this is incorrect.

The 17-40 lens is ancient, it’s f4 and full frame.

The 17-55 is 2.8 for crop and is a much more modern design, great IQ but no so great build quality.

I was posting more, but the OP needs to only read @HoppyUK’s post, the premise of the question is skewed.
 
Back in 2006 I purchased the Sigma 17-70 F4.5-5.6 non OS. Very sharp, great focal length, very happy.
However I then started listening to the hype of how good the 17-40L was, even when fitted to an aps-c camera ... "superior sharpness", "rich colours", "improved contrast" so I exchanged the Sigma.
BIG mistake, it wasnt as sharp, colours and contrast were on a par, more expensive, less versatile focal length, in fact the only benefit was that it is a parfocal lens.
 
Some time ago I compared the 15-85mm EF-S with the 16-35 f/2.8 II EF on a 50D and I thought they were on a par in terms of image quality.
 
Phil V said:
I understand what you’re trying to say, but this is incorrect.

The 17-40 lens is ancient, it’s f4 and full frame.

The 17-55 is 2.8 for crop and is a much more modern design, great IQ but no so great build quality.

I was posting more, but the OP needs to only read @HoppyUK’s post, the premise of the question is skewed.
Click to expand...

Cheers Phil :)

Further to my comment that the difference between EF-S and EF lenses is not really about image quality (both can be equally good) but in other areas, the two lenses quoted are clear examples of that - Canon L 17-40mm f4 and EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS*. The need to cover a full-frame sensor with more than twice the image area of crop-format APS-C imposes optical limitations, and with shorter focal lengths they are severe. Both have a similar focal length range, but the EF-S lens goes considerably longer, has a full stop more aperture, and image-stabilisation as well.

Some people buy full-frame lenses for their crop-format cameras so that they're ready to move to a full-frame camera - the best of both worlds. But actually, it can be the worst of both worlds as you are paying for something you can't use while missing out on the optical upsides of lenses designed for smaller sensors. Then when you do change, all focal lengths behave very differently and will need replacing anyway. To get the most from any camera, use lenses designed specifically for the sensor format and you may never need to change.

*Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS is another example of how optical design constraints can be balanced in different ways. Compared to the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8, it loses the maximum aperture but gains extra focal length at both ends of the range.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies guys, good reading. One thing I have noticed with my 10-18mm lens, and similarly with my 55-250 EFS lens is that the focus ring is extremely sensitive, with a very narrow "window" of proper focus, if that makes sense... or to try and explain - if I rotate the focus ring it can be out of focus or in focus by just the most minuscule of rotation. As well as this, even though I'm adjusting it to be as sharp as possible my images never seem razor sharp.... even though everything else, as far as I know, I'm doing correctly... good sturdy tripod, timer delay on shutter etc.

I wonder if anyone else has either lens/es and feels the same? I've not had the fortuitousness of using an L landscape lens so I don't know how a good lens should be etc.
 
smr said:
Thanks for the replies guys, good reading. One thing I have noticed with my 10-18mm lens, and similarly with my 55-250 EFS lens is that the focus ring is extremely sensitive, with a very narrow "window" of proper focus, if that makes sense... or to try and explain - if I rotate the focus ring it can be out of focus or in focus by just the most minuscule of rotation. As well as this, even though I'm adjusting it to be as sharp as possible my images never seem razor sharp.... even though everything else, as far as I know, I'm doing correctly... good sturdy tripod, timer delay on shutter etc.

I wonder if anyone else has either lens/es and feels the same? I've not had the fortuitousness of using an L landscape lens so I don't know how a good lens should be etc.
Click to expand...
This is normal for lenses designed to be autofocus lenses even if they have a manual focus ring. It is done that way to maximise autofocus speed but unfortunately there is a limit on how little you can move your fingers. Some lenses are designed to be either auto or manual focus and use a different method of manual focus. A case is Canon's EF-S 18-135 lens which can only be manually focused with the shutter button half depressed. This is because the lens needs power to read the position of the focus ring and then turn the focus mechanism electrically - you can only indirectly manually focus this lens but it is much easier than your 10-18 lens is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top