Beginner EF-S question

MNDec

MNDec

Messages
144
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
No
Have a question about EF-S lenses and crops.

I hsve a 600D and i believe that EF lenses have a longer focal length equivalent, ie a 50mm is more like 60mm.

Does the same go for EF-S lenses? Would a 17-55 be equivalent of 30-70 or whichever on a full frame or does the Lens take account of the crop?

Hope that makes sense....
 
The crop factor is the same for EF and EF-S lenses - at about 1.6ish so an EF or EF-S lens at 50mm on a crop body will give same field of view as an 80mm on a full frame body.
 
As Steve said, the actual focal length doesn't change, a 17-55mm lens is a 17-55mm lens, what changes is how it frames. The 1.6x crop on your camera body would frame the equivalent to a 27-88mm lens on a full frame sensor. An EF-S lens is specifically designed for the smaller cropped cameras

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
 
EF and EF-S is essentially the fitment system so there are no advantages or disadvantages they either fit or don't fit (EF and EFS lenses fit EFS camera bodies but EFS lenses won't work on an EF camera as they should)
 
Last edited:
I ask because i have a 24-105 which i have been using. I took part in a studio day at weekend and found it wasnt wide enough.

I was thinking about getting an EF-S 17-55 but now im thinking that the expense may not be worth the width increase.

Would something like a 10-22 be better or are there distortion issues with studio photography with something so wide?
 
MNDec said:
I ask because i have a 24-105 which i have been using. I took part in a studio day at weekend and found it wasnt wide enough.

I was thinking about getting an EF-S 17-55 but now im thinking that the expense may not be worth the width increase.

Would something like a 10-22 be better or are there distortion issues with studio photography with something so wide?
Click to expand...

17-55mm f2.8 is the perfect lens for your cropped sensor
 
pete.rush said:
17-55mm f2.8 is the perfect lens for your cropped sensor
Click to expand...
What he said, the difference between 17 and 24 is massive.

Just a small point though, I wouldn't be using the wide end of my zoom generally in a studio for shooting people.
 
MNDec said:
I couldnt step back any further and it was only way i could get full length shot
Click to expand...

In that case I'd suggest the studio was the problem rather than your lens! Shooting someone at 17mm even on a crop sensor is going to make parts of them look a bit funny. Unless they have really small feet, in which case it might help "normalise" them ;)
 
If it's any consolation, I'm pretty new to all this lark too so that makes my comments less valid than most of the experts' but conversely, it does mean I can sympathise with (and remember) your own position!

This place is friendly - stick some photos up in the General or Photos for Pleasure section if you want more gentle feedback. To be honest, the most rabid responses tend to be in quite particular subforums ;)

The mistake I nearly made when starting was thinking if I bought another lens it would improve my photography. In actual fact, it would just have confused me (but maybe I'm just daft). I stuck with a single 50mm for a fair while, which meant I was just mucking around with exposure triangle and composition. "Zooming" was done by getting closer or further away from the subject. And in fact, it made me think a lot more carefully about composition. Whereas changing focal length adds a very significant new variable into that equation: as a mathematician I can say that changing focal length and the impact on the appearance of perspective is not a simple "linear" relationship and it's quite hard to appreciate the full impact at first...

A lens is as good as the photos you take with it. That's why us beginners often do well to stick with relatively cheap kit lenses. If we fall out of love with out new hobby, it won't have broken the bank. Our photography is almost always going to be limited by our technical and compositional limitations, rather than our kit, so there's a lot of temporarily wasted investment in buying an expensive piece of glass as a beginner. Sure, you'll "grow into it" as they say, but the return on your additional investment (over and above a cheaper lens) is likely to be pretty minimal for a long time. Of course, we all like nice shiny - and fancy - kit...

With one exception, my glass is all cheap. I have a single very nice zoom lens and apart from that it's kit stuff (50mm/1.8, 35mm/2.4, 18-55 cheapo zoom) and a mid-range wide-angle. I did make the mistake the other way and buy a £15 rubbish sigma telephoto zoom. It's about as sharp as the rubber in my drawer and frankly a waste of £15. But all the rest have been great value... but not what I'd really recommend at the very beginning as there's just too much choice and too many decisions to be made before you even put your eye to the viewfinder.

Sorry if you're way ahead of my blind guess re: your level of expertise - I'm not meaning to offend in any way.

Also, if you have cash to spare and want to spend it then that's you perogative! I could have stuck with maybe 2 or 3 lenses even now and still achieved 95% of the shots I've taken. And the 5% I would have missed... well, they wouldn't really have been missed :)

Having said all of that, one thing I don't regret buying was a my nice piece of glass. It is on my camera about 60% of the time and is just lovely. Would I have wanted to pay £1000 for it? No. Was it worth the £300 I paid for it... I think so. If you can pick up a bargain then great, but you need to know what you will be shooting to know whether a lens is ever going to be a bargain. Picking up a half price supertelephoto when you don't have any interest in sports or wildlife might still be a waste of quite a lot of money... ;)

Anyway, I'm not sure if any of that helps but good luck and don't ever be afraid to stick your photos up here. And enjoy!
 
MNDec said:
The 17-55 2.8 seems a lot of money, is it really that good compared to cheaper choices?
Click to expand...

You could look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC or VC versions, good lenses and a cheaper alternative, you could always go second hand, more significant saving over buying new. Depends what's your budget is
 
pete.rush said:
You could look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC or VC versions, good lenses and a cheaper alternative, you could always go second hand, more significant saving over buying new. Depends what's your budget is
Click to expand...

That's exactly the "mid range" wide-angle I bought, from this very forum's classified... decent improvement over the kit lens but still sub £200.
 
The 15-85mm another alternative with its improved IS system and overall range, significant step up from the kit lens and a very good walkabout lens on the cropped body
 
Don't discount the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX DC HSM, it's comparable to the Tamron and a lot less than the Canon equivalent.

A little comparison here:

 
Last edited:
pete.rush said:
The 15-85mm another alternative with its improved IS system and overall range, significant step up from the kit lens and a very good walkabout lens on the cropped body
Click to expand...
Agreed. The 15-85mm is a very good lens unless a wide aperture is needed. Mine stays on my 50D 80-90% of the time.
 
to balance out sometimes theres nothing better than just taking the plunge, buying the lens and seeing if its what you actually need. you can read a ton of reviews on what people think, but at the end of the day it depends on what they shoot as to whether they will like the lens or not. on top of that the pricing can vary so much on camera equipment from region to region, so if someone in the US buys a lens for $300 they will expect a lot less (and thus be more impressed) than someone in the UK spending £300.

In short buy the lens and see what YOU think. if you think its a lot buy second hand, look after it and you'll be able to sell it on for a limited loss.
 
Thanks for all the advice.

My birthday is imminent and I decided to treat myself. I ordered a Sigma 17-50 today from Wex.

I did spend a while looking at 2nd hand Canon options but the Sigma does pretty well in reviews and at £299 was cheaper new than Canon options 2nd hand.

Hope I've made the right choice!
 
I've just purchased a Canon 100D (crop factor 1.6) 18-55mm IS STM Kit and 55-250mm IS STM Lens
These are EF-S mounts, but the same Crop Factor applies irrespective

The only time I have referred to the Crop Factor was when selecting these lenses, so that I could compare them to my old Minolta X-300 and 28-210mm Lens (which I owned between 1989 and 1998)

Whilst I get used to this Canon 100D, and comparing it to my outgoing Fujifilm S2000HD, I am slowly adding to this page :
https://m8internet.com/gallery/sample.html
As you can see the Fujifilm has a focal length of 5-75mm, so trying to compare these in advance was quite difficult
Ironically, these two Canon lenses almost match perfectly

I am now looking at a third lens, the Tamron 18-270 Di II VC PZD (Canon EF mount)
However, there is a small amount of auto focusing noise in videos I have looked at, so will only be used for photos
 
Barso said:
Made the right choice then ?
Click to expand...

Yes definitely. I hadn't considered anything other than Canon until I watched the video you posted above. I always though of other makes as poor alternatives, how little I know? The lens makes my poor phototography look better, on the other hand it is so sharp it shows more faults!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top