EF & EF-S Lenses...?

THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS

THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS

Messages
1,397
Name
Stevie
Edit My Images
No
Am I correct in saying that EF-S Lenses show at a example of x1.5(for ease):

eg. 18mm - 55mm = 27mm - 82mm

And that EF Lenses show at an at a example of x1.5 (for ease):

eg, 24mm - 105mm = 36mm - 157mm


If so, I almost bought the wrong lens...phew...I did not realise that latter applied...

THANKS
 
Nothing to do with the lens, the focal lengths are affected by the BODY. On a crop body (30D, 40D, 450D, 50D etc etc, basically not the 5D ignoring the 1 series) the effective length is 1.6x due to the body (only).
 
Thanks

I dont know what made me think it did not effect the EF figures...

On another note...I notice you only have primes for the lower side and a zoom for the rest...I am interested...as I have yet to finalise my camera...it may be a 50d instead of the 500d...not made my mindup...

How do you find shooting with primes only...?

I am interested in all peoples opinions before I buy...I have to decide on lenses as well and had thought about EF vs EFS...

THANKS
 
Not necessarily.. you can get zooms that cover the whole focal length range, from extreme wide-angle to extreme telephoto.

Primes tend to be smaller/lighter, with a larger maximum aperture compared to an equivalent zoom lens, and better image quality, although with regard to IQ there's really not much in it nowadays.

The 50mm (nifty fifty) is a popular option around here, as it's small, cheap (<£100 for the Canon f/1.8 version) and excellent quality.

For what it's worth, my setup (all Canon) is a 24-70mm f/2.8 L, a 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and a 50mm f/1.4. I'm planning to add a Sigma 12-24mm to that :nuts:

Shooting with prime lenses IMO makes you approach subjects differently. The fact that you can't change focal length means you have to think more about your position and camera angle, which perhaps imposes a more creative style of working. I notice the difference when I've been shooting with my 50mm.

I'd recommend you give the 50mm f/1.8 a go.. for a minumum outlay you can get into the world of prime lenses and see for yourself if you like that way of shooting and the resulting images :)

EDIT - one thing to be aware of, if you're not already.. you can't mount an EF-S lens on a full-frame body, but you can mount EF lenses on any Canon body, crop or full-frame. Something to bear in mind if you have any thoughts about going full-frame in the future.

A.
 
...and just to complicate matters further, you cannot mount EF-S lenses on the 1D MkIII as this has a 1.3x cropped sensor.
 
Its probably easier to think of it this way - on a 1.6 crop sensor (30/40/50D - 350/400/450/500D etc) you can use ANY Canon mount lens, EF or EFS, makes no difference.

On anything else (full frame very expensive cameras and the 1Dmk3 which is also very expensive) you can only use EF mounts.

Focal lengths are relative to the sensor size and / or the distance from the sensor to the rear element (EFS rear elements sit closer to the mirror), so a full frame will be wider than the crop, but the crop will have a longer reach on the end of the zoom!
 
pearce_jj said:
Nothing to do with the lens, the focal lengths are affected by the BODY. On a crop body (30D, 40D, 450D, 50D etc etc, basically not the 5D ignoring the 1 series) the effective length is 1.6x due to the body (only).
Click to expand...


You are talking rubbish :bonk:
 
^ he's not. He means the focal ratio is effected by the body.
 
Take a Canon 10D and a 5D. The distance from the rear element to the focal plane are the same. With the Canon 300 using an EF-s lens the rear element is closer to the focal plane, so the AOV will not have increased as much from the rear element.
 
The focal length ration is effected by the sensor size within the body. All lens focal lengths are expressed in 35mm (film) terms and this equates to a full frame digital sensor.
 
TBMS - I personally really like primes because they are small and simple and have massive apertures giving great subject isolation. I'd really like a 24..70 F2.8 but can't afford it.

Because there's no zoom it makes things easier for me, one less thing to think about. Say I take the camera to the park with the kids, I would take the 85mm lens every time. If I take the 70..200 other people are uncomfortable with me waiving it about. The 85mm means that my children are visible, everyone and everything else is just a fuzz, and as they're running about the place, some you get and some you don't - obviously not a problem on digital anyway.

HTH
 
classcams said:
Take a Canon 10D and a 5D. The distance from the rear element to the focal plane are the same. With the Canon 300 using an EF-s lens the rear element is closer to the focal plane, so the AOV will not have increased as much from the rear element.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the OP was really concerned about film cameras TBH and in any case an EF-S lens couldn't be mounted to one.
 
Sooooo I am now correct in saying that for a Canon 50D:

EF-S Lenses at x1.5 (easy conversion...I know it is really x1.6):

18mm - 55mm = 27mm - 82mm

EF Lenses at x1.5 (easy conversion...I know it is really x1.6):

24mm - 105mm = 36mm - 157mm


So with the 50D...if I buy EF-S...I need to look at something like a Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM...to cover wideangle landscapes and portrait etc

I cant yet pigeon hole myself with photography...as I do macro...landscape and want to also shoot portrait...

THANKS for all the comments...it all feed into my research...I only want a to buy camera once...so have to try and fix out what my needs are better...
 
yep you got it. You might want to look at the 17-85mm lens. Bear in mind that if you want that 'professional' looking diffused background blur, you'll need an f/2.8 or faster lens as well.
 
Hi looking here:

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat5.html

but can only see the:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM £290

or:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM £745

or:

Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM mkII £1150


Quite a bit of price difference...

But:

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II £82


Which lens you talking about...?
 
Sorry two seperate comments really - just meaning that, as you mention portraits, a fast(er) lens than F4 might be better.

The 50mm f1.8 is probably worth the punt, search on here, it comes up all the time :thumbs:
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
Sooooo I am now correct in saying that for a Canon 50D:

EF-S Lenses at x1.5 (easy conversion...I know it is really x1.6):

18mm - 55mm = 27mm - 82mm

EF Lenses at x1.5 (easy conversion...I know it is really x1.6):

24mm - 105mm = 36mm - 157mm


So with the 50D...if I buy EF-S...I need to look at something like a Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM...to cover wideangle landscapes and portrait etc

I cant yet pigeon hole myself with photography...as I do macro...landscape and want to also shoot portrait...

THANKS for all the comments...it all feed into my research...I only want a to buy camera once...so have to try and fix out what my needs are better...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you have got it, which, with respect to the helpful intentions of preceding posts above, is not surprising given the amount of misinformation in some of them.

"So with the 50D...if I buy EF-S...I need to look at something like a Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM...to cover wideangle landscapes and portrait etc"

The 17-40 is an EF lens, which means it will cover the larger sensor size of full frame. But if you fit it on a crop camera, the focal length doesn't change and the smaller sensor just records a smaller section from the middle of the image. The rest is wasted, literally thrown away.

When you use a 1.6x crop format camera, it is the field of view that is cropped, not the focal length. In this respect, the field of view is equivalent to using a lens 1.6x longer focal length on full frame, not the same as. It is the camera that has changed, not the lens.

In terms of field of view, it is essentially the same as an EF-S 18-55 kit lens, but quite a lot shorter at the longer end. It is okay for landscapes with a modest wide angle at 17mm (which is not really very wide on a crop camera) but 40mm is too short for portraits - you need 50mm at least or you will be on top of the subject.
 
But does that not mean that it acts like a 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm

In other words the 50mm has wasted light...is just wasted...but what the viewer shows and it records is 80mm

If the lenses sit side by side:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM...so...at 17mm = 27.2mm

Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM...so...at 17mm = 27.2mm


SAME PHOTO...???


So then a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II would be 80mm

AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT...OR WILL THERE BE DIFFERENCES IN THE 27.2MM EF & EF-S LENS PHOTOS...???


THANKS...I'LL GET THERE YET
 
Yes you're spot on. The same photo would be produced,

From a 5D using an 80mm lens
as
From a 50D using a 50mm lens

There is one other slight complication in that the same DoF would be produced (roughly),

from a 5D using an 80mm lens at f2.8
as
from a 50D using a 50mm lens at f2

However the shutter speed on the 50D would be half the exposure time, all at the same ISO.

Hoppy is correct..., just very accurate with the description and wording etc.
 
So if I get a 500d(£450) or 50d(£700)...my options for lenses I am considering are:


Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM (£690)

or

Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM (£515)
&
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II (£80)

or

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM (£290)
&
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II (£80)


These would be used for cover Macro (+my Raynox250), portrait & landscape photos...

All comments/help welcome...
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
But does that not mean that it acts like a 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm

In other words the 50mm has wasted light...is just wasted...but what the viewer shows and it records is 80mm

If the lenses sit side by side:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM...so...at 17mm = 27.2mm

Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM...so...at 17mm = 27.2mm


SAME PHOTO...???


So then a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II would be 80mm

AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT...OR WILL THERE BE DIFFERENCES IN THE 27.2MM EF & EF-S LENS PHOTOS...???


THANKS...I'LL GET THERE YET
Click to expand...

Stick at it fella :)

From your terminology, I'm not certain exactly what you mean. Sometimes I think you've got it with...
"Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM...so...at 17mm = 27.2mm
Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM...so...at 17mm = 27.2mm"

But then you say: "So then a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II would be 80mm" which is ambiguous :thinking:

The 1.6x crop factor is only useful (or relevant) to those people who have come from full frame film cameras and are used to certain focal length lenses producing a certain field of view. In order to calculate what the image will look like when they fit their old lenses to a modern digital camera with a cropped format sensor (ie it is much smaller) if you multiply the focal length by 1.6x you will get the equivalent field of view.

In other words, if you fit a 50mm lens on a crop camera, the field of view is the same as if you had an 80mm lens on a full frame camera. But the focal length has not changed - only the area of the captured image has altered. As you say, a 17mm lens is a 17mm lens is a 17mm lens - only the camera changes.

If you are just using one camera, eg a crop format camera, you can effectively ignore the crop factor; it is only useful when comparing different format cameras.

For reference, focal lengths around 25-40mm are regarded as 'normal' on a crop camera; wide angles are 10-20mm and 'long' lenses are 50mm-plus.

"AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT...OR WILL THERE BE DIFFERENCES IN THE 27.2MM EF & EF-S LENS PHOTOS...???"

On the same camera, yes, they will be identical :thumbs:

HTH :)
 
Got ya...

Its all about the perspective of what the body sees and the multiplication factor is only for reference when making camera comparisons...

SORTED IN THE NOGGIN...

What do you think about the lens choices I am considering...?

...Reason I as is you guys have a vast experience...I know it will only be a guide and I'll be into jessops to have a wee try before I buy...obviously from the best seller...but comfort in hands is the point...although if Im off at a tangent...feel free to aim me in the right angle again
 
None of those lenses you mention above offer a 1:1 magnification ratio which is what you need from a macro lens.

Macro lenses

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Lens
Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM Lens
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro Lens

As for EF-S v EF lenses, depends if you intend in the future to go full Frame, as mentioned above EF-S lenses will only fit on the 1.6x cropped sensor camera's
 
Sorry should have also mentioned I was thinking about a set of tubes or bellows...cheap ones so would have to manual focus for macro...but I do just now...and I have a macro rail setup...There is also the reversing ring thing to consider...

I can get these cheap off ebay so if the results are not up to scratch the loss would not be much
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
So if I get a 500d(£450) or 50d(£700)...my options for lenses I am considering are:


Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM (£690)

or

Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM (£515)
&
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II (£80)

or

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM (£290)
&
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II (£80)


These would be used for cover Macro (+my Raynox250), portrait & landscape photos...

All comments/help welcome...
Click to expand...

Your lens choices raise all sorts of other questions, but only because lens choices always do. I will just say that the EF 17-40 4 L doesn't really make much sense because you are paying a lot of money for a full frame lens but not using the extra image area that it produces, and losing out with its short focal length range :shrug:

I hope it is helpful to say that in order to replicate the field of view you get with your Panasonic FZ30, with a crop format Canon you would need lenses from 22-262mm focal length.
 
Thinking about starting off with a couple of good lenses and decent camera...not looking at the long side...save that for xmas/birthday time and maybe the lottery...

hence the options...

I've realised my price bracket will mean always crop I think...

The option of EF lens means I could later add a x2 converter...maybe


ALL...THANKS FOR THE HELP
 
Be careful with your terminology! Perspective has a very specific meaning and this phrase makes no sense: "Its all about the perspective of what the body sees..."

As far as lenses go, frankly I would advise you not to spend a fortune until you are absolutely clear. From what you've said, 18-55 IS kit, plus 55-250IS are very good lenses and brilliant value. The 55-250 will go well with the Raynox and get you down to 1:1 macro or thereabouts. If you want to upgrade, then these lenses will sell quickly for good money.

If you're minted, 17-55 2.8 IS, and 70-200 4 L IS plus a set of Kenko extension tubes. That's what I use :thumbs:

Inbetween, 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS, plus the tubes :)

Or mix and match to suit your budget? :shrug: Maybe throw in a 50 1.8 for shallow DoF portraits. 10-22 super-wide for landscapes. 100 2.8 Macro... endless choices. Don't foget a good flash gun!
 
Agree with all that. To add, the 85mm f1.8 is brilliant value (equivalent to 135mm on a FF) portrait lens.
 
If we're on about lens choices, then with my 50D I have:

EF-S 10-22mm - very light so always in the bag
EF 24-105mm - main walkabout lens, always on the camera by default
Ef 70-200mm F4 non IS - cheap but great versatile light lens
EF 100-400mm - fantastic long telephoto

add to that a 1.4x and 2x convertor and I think I have just about every eventuality covered.
 
What about the MACRO Stuff:

set of tubes or bellows...cheap ones so would have to manual focus for macro...but I do just now...and I have a macro rail setup...

There is also the reversing ring thing to consider...

I can get these cheap off ebay so if the results are not up to scratch the loss would not be much...

THANKS
 
One more thing...just to spin it all on its head...

Anyone out there using Sigma...or other lens maker for the Canonthat are worth considering...they seem to be quite a bit cheaper sometimes...

THANKS
 
Canon lenses hold their value best and have the highest consistency IMO.

Someone posted a link to some stats compiled by a lens hire company a while ago - the probability of getting 5 "good" Sigma lenses in a row was something like 30%, vs 70% for Canon (figures from memory).
 
I think the kenko tubes are meant to be good for cheapo (i.e. non canon). Not that cheap at ~£80 (but allow auto AF+Aperture)
I think I saw somewhere that EF-S lenses are not compatible with teleconverters, and may not be compatible with all macro tubes.
 
Yip...

I know the teleconvertors are incompat with EFS...but I think you can use the tubes...saw a post about fitting a small one onto EF-S lenses so you can use on full frame camera...
I was thinking mega cheap from ebay £7ish...manual focus but i dont mind...bellows on a rail about £16ish...or a reversing ring...

What would happen to a 50d...fitted with an EF lens (so wasted light) then fitted with rings...? Would this use the wasted light by letting more of it fall onto the smaller chip...? What would this do to focus/focal length...

Obviously using better quality rings would allow more auto control...
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
Yip...

I know the teleconvertors are incompat with EFS...but I think you can use the tubes...saw a post about fitting a small one onto EF-S lenses so you can use on full frame camera...
Click to expand...

TCs of any make or model are incompatible with Canon EF-S lenses full stop.

I was thinking mega cheap from ebay £7ish...manual focus but i dont mind...bellows on a rail about £16ish...or a reversing ring...
Click to expand...

Manual focus is not much of a problem at all, but manual aperture control is incredibly awkward. Go for a set of Kenko tubes (£120-ish) but EF-S lenses do not fit them (there are rumoured to be EF-S fit Kenkos, but I've never seen them).

What would happen to a 50d...fitted with an EF lens (so wasted light) then fitted with rings...? Would this use the wasted light by letting more of it fall onto the smaller chip...? What would this do to focus/focal length...

Obviously using better quality rings would allow more auto control...
Click to expand...

If you fit tubes or bellows, or use a macro lens, you will lose brightness. It is unrelated to format, eg makes no difference if it's EF or EF-S lenses. When you get down to 1:1 life size magnification, the loss is always two stops. The only method that does not suffer this light loss is using close-up lenses, such as the Raynox 250 you mentioned but don't expect stella image quality with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top