EF versus EF-S lenses?

[jla930]

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

[ebiggs1]

B,

I like your answer but it isn’t totally accurate. It does get the general point across, however.

First a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens.  It will never change nor will any other lens after it is manufactured. What does change is the focal plane.  The “S” in EF-S lens stands for ‘short focus’.  That is the reason you can’t or shouldn’t use an S lens on a FF body.  There simply isn’t enough room in most cases but not allways.  Som EF-S lensese can be adapted to work.  I don't reccommend it but it has been done.

I hate the use of “crop factor” in describing these camera.  It is so misleading as nothing is actually cropped.  All cameras are full frame meaning you get exactly what you see in the view finder.  But crop factor is what has stuck so we use it.

The only use of the 1.6x figure is to compare the given lens to a FF camera.  Who cares?  Other than that is useless.  And, BTW, there is another Canon crop factor camera. It is the 1.3x of the 1 series.  This includes the outstanding and best in class 1.3x ever made 1D Mk IV.  Rumor has it Canon is considering a new version of the 1D MK IV.  It, however, cannot use crop or EF-S lenses.  It must use EF lenses.  Not to mention the brand-N version which has a cropfactor of 1.5x.

The original reason for the 1.6x size sensor was for technical reasons. At the time that size was all that could be produced with anything close to resembling decent specs.  Even taking that into consideration, the first DSLR’s were extremely expensive.  A 1D in year 2000 was eight thousand dollars!  We were glad to have it at that.  Think what that would be today?

On the topic of “L” glass, they do get the best of everything.  But they do not necessarily produce the best image.  Some EF-S lens rival and even surpass a given L lens. An example could be the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens vs the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens.  In this case the S lens is around a hundred bucks cheaper but on a EOS 7D Mk II it produces 9P-Mpix against 8P-Mpix for the L lens.  Yes, I agree these two lenses are not exactly the same thing but their design purpose is.

Nice reply, good job. it gets the point across. Just adding a few points to more clarify it. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

On the topic of “L” glass, they do get the best of everything.  But they do not necessarily produce the best image.  Some EF-S lens rival and even surpass a given L lens. An example could be the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens vs the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens.  In this case the S lens is around a hundred bucks cheaper but on a EOS 7D Mk II it produces 9P-Mpix against 8P-Mpix for the L lens.  Yes, I agree these two lenses are not exactly the same thing but their design purpose is.

---

One observable, if somewhat anecdotal, difference: I've yet to see an "L" lens (including my 24-105) that required autofocus microadjustment. OTOH, my 17-55 f/2.8 requires +9 points of AFMA (a reality I failed to notice before my first shoot with that lens, resulting in virtually unusable images).

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

 The "... it produces 9P-Mpix against 8P-Mpix for the L lens."  Is a labrotory measurement and does not really indicte how the lens will function in the real world of photography.  That is a big reason why these 'tests' are virtually useless to the average Joe.  Howver, they do show exactly how well the glass is ground (produced) and lense is designed.  Just another tool and should be used in context.

[debraellsworth]

Thank you!

[debraellsworth]

Thank you!!!

[debraellsworth]

Thank you so much!

[TTMartin]

---

@BlaeysOGlory wrote:

I've been looking for info on EF lenses vs EF-S lenses, and stumbled upon this community. I'm glad Canon has a community. Now I finally have a place I can get help.

First, let me start by saying the more I look at different lenses, the more confused I become. I'm very new to photography and I really don't understand what all the different lenses do or why there are so many. I upgraded from a Rebel T3 to a Rebel T6i. There is also the T6s, and now I wonder if I should have gotten that instead. It just seemed to be nothing more than gadgety features, so I settled for the T6i. Now I'm kicking myself for that decision.

My main dillema is that lenses can be extremely expensive. I want to take the best possible picture, but now that I've done some research, I'm not so sure that a crop sensor body was a good choice. I'm just really confused about the whole thing. Also, I was considering getting a new STM lens to replace the older 18-55 lense that I've had since I first got the T3. But I don't really understand what an STM zoom lens is either. I only know that it's newer technology. Do I really need to do this? 

My apologies for all the questions, but if anyone can shed some light, is greatly appreciate it.

Thank you in advance.

---

You don't really need the STM focus motor. However being newer designed lenses the STM version generally have better image quality than their non-STM counterparts. 

The big thing with photography is that it is much more dependent on the photographer than the gear. While it is easy to get caught up in the must have the latest, greatest, best quality gear. More often than not the two best ways to improve your photography are education and practice.

Unless, you know and have a specific reason why you need something DON'T BUY IT!!! It is way to easy to get caught up by Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS).

There are many good books that will help improve your photography as well as great resources on YouTube. AdoramaTV has many, I think their 'Digital Photography One on One' series is superb for learning the basics and more. For creative inspiration they have 'You Keep Shooting' with Bryan Peterson .