EF-S lenses, What does the S do?

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
k.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

WormWood wrote:


"Stacey" wrote in message
...

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

"WormWood" writes:
"WormWood" 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/

WormWood wrote:

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
k.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).