Lenses - EF-S or EF?

Question

Hi,

(I am reposting my earlier question as I need a few more comments/answers before I make a decision)

I have decided to go for Canon 40D but unsure if I should invest in an EF lens (looking in to the future when I might on one day buy a camera with a full-frame sensor) or just stick with lenses with EF-S mount for the time being.

If I use an EF lens on a Canon 40D, will the quality or other attributes of the image suffer? Is there a reason why I shouldn't go for EF at this time?

What I specifically want to know is whether the image quality is compromised when EF lenses are used on EF-S mount cameras like the 40D.

If the image quality between EF and EFS mounted on a non-FF camera like 40D is no different, why isn't everyone with smaller-frame cameras buying EF lenses? Is it only because of the price?

Answer 1

If you are planning a future upgrade to a full frame camera (5D or 1D cameras), then get all EF lenses, the EF-S lenses will not work on full frame cameras.  If you are planning on staying with the 40D, then the EF-S lenses will be just fine.

I don't think the image quality will suffer any.  If you want the best image quality, then you'll want to consider the "L" series of Canon lenses, they are the top of the line.

Answer 2

Using an EF lens on a non-full frame DSLR is not going to be a problem, in fact since your sensor will be using the heart of the lens, you may find their over all performance surpasses the EF-S lenses.

The question is this ... do you want to go to the expense of replacing any EF-S lenses you do buy when you eventually buy a Canon full frame camera?

If you can afford it, stick with EF lenses.  There is one that you may want to consider if you shoot a lot of landscapes or architecturals ... that is the excellent 10-22 mm ultra wide angle lens designed for all the Canon cameras that have the 1.6x sensor.

Answer 3

EF or EF-S there should be no compromise in quality due to that. Every lens and model is unique but if a lens is good it will behave just as good whether it was mounted on a full frame camera or a 1.6X camera.

The reason why some people do not buy EF lenses all the time is because due to the 1.6X factor some EF-S lenses are made to make up for the 1.6X difference.

For example, on a 5D if you use a 16-35mm L F2.8, at 16mm you're using a super wide angle lens. The same 16-35 lens on a 40D will not really be as wide, since the 16mm is really going to look like a 25.6mm (16 x 1.6) Therefore if you're a real estate photographer with a 40D, the 16-35 might prove useless in a tight bathroom. This is why canon came out with the 10-22mm EF-S. If you do the math on these numbers you'll see that 10-22 x 1.6 is really a 16-35.2 thus an actual alternative to the 16-35mm EF.

The other thing is Full frame digital cameras are usually professional class cameras. These users would normally require a high end L lens, while the small frame camera users, the majority are non-professionals, but perhaps prosumers who may not need to spend top dollar to shoot family events and hobby shots. So EF-s are made cheaper for a specific market while the L lenses are made for a specific market, so marketing plays a role in this as well.

Hope this helped you.

http://www.elarabiphotography.com