Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 3, 2005, 3:07 PM   #1
sse
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1
Default

I have just got from 35 mm to my 20D and now need a shorter lens, at least comparable to 28mm on 35mm SLR, hopefully wider.

I have followed the discussion on the ES-F lenses (10-22,17-85) vs. the EF lenses on this forum. Both the 10-22 and 17-85 sell for the same price range as EF "L" lenses, for example 17-40 L, or Sigma 15-30 DG or 17-35 DG.

Now tomy understanding thewide angle EF lenses should give a superior quality over the EF-S on 20D since thesensor is smaller than 35mm film and hence only the middle part of the projected picture is captured. I have understood earlier thatthe edges have always been the problem for the wide angle lenses.

Is this reasoning right ? Am I better of with some "L" or "DG"quality EF lenses or EF- S ? Are there any features in the 20D that would only be supported by the digital EF-S lenses ?

Thank's for helping me out,

Sse.









sse is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 4, 2005, 9:58 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,520
Default

There is no feature advantage in using the EFs lenses over EF lenses with your 20D.

Right now I am using a 10D with a Digital Rebel as backup. The only EFs lens I own is the 18-55 that came with the Digital Rebel, and it is rarely seen outside my third (never taken) bag. Even if the 10D was an EFs mount camera I would not take either the 10-22 or 17-85 EFs lens over the 17-40L, which I do own. The 17-40 is better built with better glass and is a wonderful lens. The 10-22 would be tempting due to the unique range, but the 17-85 is overpriced for what it is. No way it should be priced anywhere near the 17-40L.

The 17-40 will give superior performance over the 17-85 or 10-22 because it is a much better lens without even taking into consideration what you ask about the sensor only seeing the center portion of the angle of coverage of the 17-40. When you also take that into consideration the decision is easy as to which one will be the optically better lens to buy if ultimate image quality is the final objective. The only reason for buying the 17-85 is convenience of a wider range of focal lengths. That convenience is offset by inferior optical performance. Only you can decide which is more impotant to you. Either way the cost is the same.

Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2005, 11:18 AM   #3
Member
 
dougsmit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 90
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
The 17-40 will give superior performance over the 17-85 or 10-22 because it is a much better lens without even taking into consideration what you ask about the sensor only seeing the center portion of the angle of coverage of the 17-40. When you also take that into consideration the decision is easy as to which one will be the optically better lens to buy if ultimate image quality is the final objective. The only reason for buying the 17-85 is convenience of a wider range of focal lengths. That convenience is offset by inferior optical performance. Only you can decide which is more impotant to you. Either way the cost is the same.
Well, yes, but the reason the 17-85 and 10-22 might be a better choice for some people is that they want to shoot longer or wider than 17-40. Canon made the EF-S lenses optimised for the smaller sensor size. Lenses like the 17-40 benefit from having the weaker part of their field (edges) cropped out by the smaller sensor. On the other hand, IS lens designs did not have to be compromised to make them cover the larger format. Whether this makes them better or cheaper is a fair question.

Canon decided to lower the price on the 17-85 and make possible the 10-22 by designing them not to cover a larger area which the cameras owned by the target market would not make use of. The 10-22 was made to simulate the angle of coverage of the 16-35 on film making it the widest rectilinear wideangle lens available for the 1.6 crop factor cameras. At 17-22, the 17-40 might be better but at 10-16 the EF-S is the winner by default.

A good part of the cost of the 17-85 is not the lens but the Image Stabilization (IS) system offered by that lens. Compare the price of other Canon IS lenses with their non-IS counterparts and subtract that amount before saying the lens is overpriced. Whether or not you value IS, it is not free!

dougsmit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2005, 11:33 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

  • The EF-s lens will get you down to the 10mm- range for a reasonable price(reasonable If you check what a full frame lens in this range costs) [/*]
  • The EF-s lenses only work with the 20D and Drebel, if you more on up you will need to sell them off. [/*]
  • EF-s lenses do not gain any special features on the 20D, a F2.8 L does. For focusing the 20D's high precision cross sensor is only activated at F2.8 or faster. (not so importantfor a wide angle lens) [/*]
  • L series use special glass and extra coatingsin their construction, that helps get rid of chromatic and other distortions and most are very sharp (There are some exceptions like the old 100-300 F5.6L, not so sharp)[/*]
IMHO: Unless you really need the 10mm- range I'd select the L glass. That 17-40 F4 L comes as an excellent buy/price for an L lens. :-)



Exactly, on the 70-200 F2.8 L,I am looking at, IS adds 1000$cdnto its price.
Quote:
Whether or not you value IS, it is not free!
.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2005, 4:28 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
There is no feature advantage in using the EFs lenses over EF lenses with your 20D.

Right now I am using a 10D with a Digital Rebel as backup. The only EFs lens I own is the 18-55 that came with the Digital Rebel, and it is rarely seen outside my third (never taken) bag. Even if the 10D was an EFs mount camera I would not take either the 10-22 or 17-85 EFs lens over the 17-40L, which I do own. The 17-40 is better built with better glass and is a wonderful lens. The 10-22 would be tempting due to the unique range, but the 17-85 is overpriced for what it is. No way it should be priced anywhere near the 17-40L.

The 17-40 will give superior performance over the 17-85 or 10-22 because it is a much better lens without even taking into consideration what you ask about the sensor only seeing the center portion of the angle of coverage of the 17-40. When you also take that into consideration the decision is easy as to which one will be the optically better lens to buy if ultimate image quality is the final objective. The only reason for buying the 17-85 is convenience of a wider range of focal lengths. That convenience is offset by inferior optical performance. Only you can decide which is more impotant to you. Either way the cost is the same.
I suspect that you may be overstating the case slightly. The tone of your post suggests that only an insane person would choose the EF-S lenses because their optics are shocking and all they have going for them is their focal length. Optically there is little doubt that they are not in the same class as the L lenses, however it may be that on the 20D (which doesn't have the resolution of the 1Ds) at print sizes less than A3 you might be hard-pressed to find a practical difference. It is certainly clear that the EF-S 18-55mm isn't in the same class as the other two EF-S lenses.

Perhaps you might consider the review of the 10-22 at luminous landscape where they conclude:

"The numbers tell a positive story, but more importantly, this lens is capable of producing some very fine results in terms of prints. I wouldn't hesitate to use the Canon 10-22mm for any professional application."

The full review:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...2mm-test.shtml

Another good review of the 10-22:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

And two good reviews of the 17-85:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...location.shtml

I don't think anyone would dispute that your 17-40 L lens is a fine lens, but I don't think that the EF-S lenses are rubbish either. As for the 17-85mm being ridiculously overpriced - well, if you accept that the lens quality (although it is not L standard) is significantly better than some of the cheaper Canon "consumer" zooms and it has the IS, and because it only has to cover a smaller area it's possible to build a zoom range that would be very difficult to cover full-frame then it doesn't seem so bad.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 AM.