Home Forums Gear Photography Need a longer lens

I'll trade a stop of light,for the focal length range and IQ inherent...though admittedly,my 100-400 is a ZINGER.




It hangs with primes,though it ain't "supposed" to....................

You know you are onto something,when you can see your reflection in the victim's eye.




Though sometimes you don't wanna..................

Yes, the eyes bring life into ones photos.

What's the difference between Canon's EF series lenses and the EF-S series?

thanks.

From essentially the introduction of the EOS camera system in 1987 through to 2003 Canon standardized on a single lens mount system for all of their SLR cameras - the EF (electrofocus) lens mount. So throughout this time there was no possible source of confusion, since all EF lenses made by Canon and other lensmakers will physically fit all Canon EOS cameras.

However, in 2003 Canon introduced a new digital camera, the consumer-oriented EOS 300D/Digital Rebel/Kiss Digital camera, which sported a new lens mount design dubbed EF-S. All consumer to midrange digital EOS cameras released since have been both EF and EF-S compatible. For reasons explained in a moment, no film camera has ever been EF-S compatible.

So it�s important to remember that digital camera bodies with EF-S lens mounts are totally compatible with all regular EF lenses. However an EF-S lens can fit only EF-S compatible cameras and no others. (unless the lens is altered - see the section on hacking below).

EF-S bodies have small mirror boxes - roughly 2/3 the size of a regular EOS camera (also known as a 1.6x cropping factor) - because they use image sensors which are smaller in area than 35mm film. They, and APS cameras which similarly used small imaging areas, are thus often called subframe cameras. Cameras which use 35mm film or which use large sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film are commonly called full frame cameras these days.

EF-S cameras thus support lenses with a shorter back focus distance than EF lenses, because the mirror swings further back. This is where the �S� comes from - EF-S lenses have shorter back focus distances. (ie: the back part of the lens can get physically closer to the image sensor since the mirror is smaller) Having a shorter back focus distance allows Canon to produce cheaper wide-angle lenses that work with the smaller image format of a subframe digital SLR, since it�s optically very challenging to create a wide angle lens with a long back focus distance.

Canon have a small but growing series of EF-S lenses available, ranging from inexpensive kit lenses to very good high-quality lenses with image stabilization. There�s even a very interesting 60mm macro lens with an EF-S mount. The super wide angle EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM (roughly 16-35mm coverage if it were full frame) is particularly well regarded, as is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM, which is an L lens in all but build quality and name.

The main issue to be concerned about with EF-S is the future value of the lenses. Right now full-frame image sensors are extremely expensive to make, which is why nearly all digital SLRs out there have image sensors smaller than that of a frame of 35mm film. But in the future it�s likely that prices on such sensors will drop, at which time full-frame digital SLRs will become more affordable and thus EF-S lenses will no longer be of use except on pre-existing cameras. The two questions are - how long will this take and will you be able to get good use of your investment in EF-S lenses before this occurs? The first nobody knows the answer to, and the second can only be answered by you. For the time being it seems likely that it�ll be some years before affordable full-frame sensors are ubiquitous, so EF-S lenses aren�t necessarily a bad idea, assuming you aren�t planning on upgrading to full-frame as soon as you c

Thanks for all the feedback. It looks like I'm going to go with the 100-400.

Yep EF-S is for cropper,while EF does it all.

I'm no EF-S lens lineup fan,but dote on both 1.3x and 1.6x crop................

You guys are out of my league (or present budget), but those are some awesome photos.

Ron & Stick,

Thanks for the low down on the ef vs ef-s.

Now can some explain the whole 1.3x or 1.6x crop thing?

If you can't tell I am in the market for a new toy and I want to learn myself up before spending the dollars.

thanks.

35mm film has an image area of 24mm by 36mm. These are the exact dimensions of the area on the film to which an image is recorded.

Medium to low-end digital cameras sold today have sensor chips smaller than 24x36mm in size, since producing a 24x36mm image chip is still quite expensive to do. Similarly, APS film records to an area of film 16.7x30.2mm in size.

The upshot of this is that if you use such a digital or APS camera you�ll be taking photos which do not record the same image size as 35mm film. So it�s like taking a photo using 35mm film and then cropping out (snipping off) the edges. Imagine drawing a smaller rectangle within a given 35mm photo and then cutting it out - you�ve got a digital or APS photo.

This cropping factor is often confusingly referred to as a focal length multiplier. This is because the cropping makes, say, a 50mm lens on an APS camera behave rather like a 70mm lens on a 35mm camera. Not because the focal length has actually changed - it hasn�t - but because of this cropping of the image. The cropping factor is sometimes specified as a numeric value - 1.3x or 1.6x, say.

If you want to use your lens to take photos of things far away then this might actually be to your advantage. But if you want to use a wide-angle lens then this cropping factor can be a problem, since wide-angle lenses yield less dramatic results when you crop out the edges.

Some people object to the term cropping factor as well, arguing quite rightly that the issue is a matter of a change in format of the image recording area and using lenses designed for a different size format. This is true, but people are so used to equating a given 35mm film focal length with a given coverage area (or field of view) that I think the concept of a cropping factor is convenient and easily understood.

To give an example, let�s say you have a 100mm lens. When used on a 35mm film camera you get a certain coverage of the scene. But if you were to put the same lens on a digital camera with a 1.6x crop factor (ie: a smaller than full frame sensor) then you would not get the same view of the scene - you�d get less. The view you would see on your 1.6x digital camera would be the same as if you had a 160mm lens, were there such a thing, on your 35mm film camera.

j_elky,
These may help along with Ron's good explanation

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm

With budget often the deciding factor in choosing a big lens, you might take a look at the Sigma AF APO DG HSM 150-500 mm F5-6.3. I've been shooting one on a Nikon D300 lately and, apart from a rather noisy OS motor, I've been pleasantly surprised. The OS really does buy you at least a couple of F stops and has allowed me to shoot some stuff handheld that I could never had shot before without a tripod. With the crop factor on that camera, the lens is effectively a 225-750. I have no idea how it might perform on a Cannon, but it works very well on a Nikon.

The 100-400 smokes the 150-500 Siggy,in IQ and AF.................

I'm a 1.6x slut and wish all of my 1D-Series bodies were 1.6x. The added "reach" is real and a guy can foot zoom for the close stuff.

For Hero Shots,I love the 17-40L and it fends weather exceptionally,especially on a 1D body. My midrange zoom is a 70-200L 2.8 non-IS and the 100-400 is my long glass. Have shot the 70-200 2.8 IS II a fair amount,but I think I prefer the IQ from my non IS version.

It is easier to back up,than it is to get closer and while I shoot all (3) Canon DSLR sensor sizes,I groove on the 1.6x...but dote on the 1D build,weather sealing,battery life,AF and IQ.

I'd be all over a 1.6x 1D...............

That wouldn't surprise me. What I like about the Sigma is the 750 mm effective reach for the price -- especially compared to anything similar wearing a Nikon name. It's a budget lens, to be sure, but it performs very well on my Nikon for everything that I need a big lens to do. Can't say how it performs on a Cannon.

My Siggy 70-200 2.8(version prior to their stabilized jaunt) was exceptional,in all regards.

I'm hardly anti-3rd Party and would be the last to say "Canon or bust",as lenses go................

With Nikon, at least, it all comes down to what you're willing to pay -- and I'm not willing to pay the freight for their big lenses.

Re. third-party lenses, at the other end of the spectrum, I've been really pleased with the Tokina AT-X Pro SD 11-16. Excellent super wide bang for the buck.

My Tammie 28-75 2.8 Macro is simply SINISTER in it's SOOC IQ...even via the 1Ds dinosaur........

Even on an XTi..............

The colors just POP,even SOOC...............