EF or EF-S for 7D/70D

[fosterscape]

I want to start upgrading my lens kit, so that one day when I can afford a 5D Mark III (a few years from now) all I will need to do is get the body. In the meantime I want to drop my EF-S kit lens for a quality replacement.

Would the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L EF be a good option for replacing a 18-55 EF-S kit lens for a crop body? When I eventually go full frame I will want a wide lens, so I thought this one may serve that purpose while also being a good replacement for the kit lens on a crop body.

I was going to upgrade my Rebel XT to a 7D about a week ago, but then the rumors of the 70D announcement started coming. So for now I'm holding off and waiting to see what this new camera will entail by the end of the month before deciding which camera body to get.

 

[Loswr]

A few years? I'm a big proponent of buying the lens you need now, for the body you have now. If you'd said, 'in a few weeks' fine. But I'd really recommend considering a high-end EF-S lens to replace your kit lens. The EF-S 15-85mm f/3-5-5.6 IS is slightly cheaper than the 17-40L, has IS and a much more useful focal range, and will deliver better IQ than the 17-40L when used on the same crop body. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is, IMO, the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. Both of those high-end EF-S lenses will hold their value well - in a few years when you get a FF body, sell the EF-S lens and buy the kit lens with the FF body.

 

[preppyak]

Both of those high-end EF-S lenses will hold their value well - in a few years when you get a FF body, sell the EF-S lens and buy the kit lens with the FF body.

Agreed; in a few years, I'll have easily shot 25,000+ pictures...I'd rather have the best lens for those pictures at that moment and worry about resale later.

For the same price as that 17-40, you could have wide angle now with the Tokina or Canon wide angles. And you can still use the Tokina at 15/16mm on full-frame (though not ideal). Or, like Neuro said, you could have the 15-85 which gives you both IS and more range. And you get a stop of light back with the 17-55.

Heck, in a few years we'll be having the discussion of whether you should be getting the 5dIV, if it's worth putting money in old technology like the 5dIII. The 17-40 might be replaced by an updated version, or Canon might have a better wide angle out. Hell, it might be clear that Canon is fading and Nikon or Sony are the better path. That's why it makes sense to go with what is the best option now. Especially when your upgrade is years off

 

[fosterscape]

This is why I asked before buying.

So if I'm just thinking EF-S, what about the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 for a less expensive wide option? Maybe paired with the 17-55mm f/2.8 on a 7D/70D.... would this cover a good range from wide to general purpose?

I already have a 70-300 EF from a few years back, not great, but has good reach.

 

[tntwit]

There are several ways you could go.

I struggled with this just recently. I have the T3i and had the 300D before that. Up until a few weeks ago I was still using the original kit lens from the 300D - the 18-55 non IS. I thought of all kinds of strategies as you probably have as well.

I ended up with the 15-85, but was at least considering the 18-135, but chose against it because I wanted the full time manual focus/ring USM of the 15-85. The 17-55 certainly gets rave reviews but my biggest complaint against my kit lens was it's lack of reach more than anything. So, the 15-85 was a compromise between the cheaper auto focus on the 18-135 and the limited range on the 17-55. There is of course the image quality of the 15-85 vs the 18-135 and the 17-55. Most of what I read seemed to indicated that the 17-55 was really good and the 15-85 was really close, both superior to the 18-135 and all superior to the 18-55 that I had.

You need to think about what is important to your style of shooting. If you are happy with the kit lens range (and I would think you are if you were thinking about the 17-40) then they 17-55 may be a great option since you get the benefit of F2.8. If you do not do a lot of low light shooting, than the range of the 15-85 may be a better option and the savings can fund a prime like the 85 1.8, which is my strategy/future purchase.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I did exactly what you are thinking. I already had a 17-55mm EF-s which was wonderful, but when a new kit 24-105mmL came up on Craigslist for $700, I bought it. Then a 70-200mm f.4L IS, plus a 50mm f/1.8. Then, when I bought a 5D MK II, I did not need lenses immediately, and I kept my 40D and the 17-55 as a backup.
The 24-105mmL is great on a crop or FF, but on a crop, I occasionally had to change lenses, since 24mm is not always wide enough.
Later, I bought a refurb 7D with refurb 15-85 as backups, those were both excellent, but when I bought a 5D MK III, the 7D just languished. I still have the 15-85mm ef-s just in case I buy another crop camera some day. I also have a 10D that I bought for the lenses that came with it, it is just sitting as well, but its a cheap backup and does quite well.

 

[Pieces Of E]

The EFS 10-22mm is also an outstanding lens as well. We are very pleased with that one.

 

[viggen61]

A few years? I'm a big proponent of buying the lens you need now, for the body you have now. If you'd said, 'in a few weeks' fine. But I'd really recommend considering a high-end EF-S lens to replace your kit lens. The EF-S 15-85mm f/3-5-5.6 IS is slightly cheaper than the 17-40L, has IS and a much more useful focal range, and will deliver better IQ than the 17-40L when used on the same crop body. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is, IMO, the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. Both of those high-end EF-S lenses will hold their value well - in a few years when you get a FF body, sell the EF-S lens and buy the kit lens with the FF body.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Should the day come when I upgrade to FF, what will bother me far more will be shelling out eleven thousand dollars for the 600mm f/4 to get close to the reach of the 100-400 on my 7D, not the value of the 17-55! That is, of course, if I don't get a 600 before then... ;D

 

[MWLindstrom]

I'm sorry to go against the tide, but I have to disagree with most of the opinions stated here except one. I've owned a 7D for about a year now and it's been magic from the get go. Even having a crop frame camera while loving what a full frame can do, the extra visual 'reach' of the crop factor (just having higher densities of pixels in a smaller image area) has been helpful and wonderful. On the OTHER hand, I'm not sure why other posters here are advocating for ef-s lenses.

When you really start looking at lens speed and image quality I seriously think it just makes more sense to look at EF lenses. On top of their native high quality optics, you're also getting things like weather sealing when you get into L glass and the ability to go straight to full frame WHENEVER that happens, be it sooner or later. I own the 17-40 f4 lens and it's my only L autofocus lens (I also own the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4 and I have access to the 70-200 f4 L), and never except for in low light has that lens had issues. It's just a fantastic lens, and a greater lens for video work on a crop frame camera because it's angle of view on an apsc sensor is something like 26-65mm. An APSC sensor actually might even get more out of this particular lens than a full frame will. The sharpness is INSANE.

I'll just leave it at this, the only thing I think of when I see EF-s lenses is the fact that you can't use them on FF bodies, and when everyone says 'you should be spending more on your glass than your camera body' and 'invest in glass more' then I see much less of a reason to buy EF-s than to buy EF. You get the best of EF by getting the sweet spot center, you get a wider selection, you get weather sealing more often, you get might quality build, you get lenses that work on EF and EF-s, and more.

My vote is invest in EF and shy away from EF-s. The 17-40 f4 is fantastic if you can deal with the f4 part of it.

 

[dasgetier]

As an APS-C user who want's to upgrade to FF in the next 2 years, I'm in a similar position.

I ended up buying an EF-S 10-22 for true wide-angle on APS-C and use EF primes for the 35 and 85mm.

My friend has a 17-55 2.8 I could borrow for vacations, I think it's the best general purpose lens for Canon APS-C and the IQ is really wonderful.

If you plan to keep the APS-C body for 1-2 years, and need a zoom, I'd recommend getting a used 17-55 2.8 and selling it afterwards. These Canon lenses hold their value surprisingly well..

 

[TrumpetPower!]

A few years? I'm a big proponent of buying the lens you need now, for the body you have now. If you'd said, 'in a few weeks' fine. But I'd really recommend considering a high-end EF-S lens to replace your kit lens. The EF-S 15-85mm f/3-5-5.6 IS is slightly cheaper than the 17-40L, has IS and a much more useful focal range, and will deliver better IQ than the 17-40L when used on the same crop body. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is, IMO, the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. Both of those high-end EF-S lenses will hold their value well - in a few years when you get a FF body, sell the EF-S lens and buy the kit lens with the FF body.

Amen.

It's only an interesting quirk of technology that allows you to mount the same lens on two different formats without going through all sorts of weird gyrations. You never hear of people wanting to buy medium format lenses for their 135 format cameras in case they decide to upgrade some day, or large format lenses for their medium format lenses for the same reason.

The only time I'd seriously consider an EF lens as opposed to an EF-S lens for an APS-C camera would be when the EF lens actually outperformed the EF-S lens on APS-C or when there simply wasn't an EF-S option. And price is definitely a consideration of performance; even if the EF lens outperformed the EF-S lens by 5%, I wouldn't buy it if it cost three times as much (unless, of course, there was something particular about that extra 5% that actually made a difference).

Personally, I wouldn't mix the two formats; I'd go whole hog the one way or the other. If I actually did have a camera in each format, I suppose I might give some consideration to sharing lenses between them, but I sure wouldn't make the mistrake of thinking they're interchangeable. That is, I'd be thinking of, say, a 50 as a normal on the one and a telephoto on the other and I wouldn't try to put the 50 on the smaller format and pretend it was a normal lens.

When you upgrade to the 135 format camera, do with the EF-S lenses whatever you do with the APS-C camera. If you keep the camera, keep the lenses. If you sell the camera, sell the lenses. It's that simple -- and no different if you were moving between 135 and medium format.

Cheers,

b&

 

[ahab1372]

[...]I own the 17-40 f4 lens and it's my only L autofocus lens (I also own the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4 and I have access to the 70-200 f4 L), and never except for in low light has that lens had issues. It's just a fantastic lens, and a greater lens for video work on a crop frame camera because it's angle of view on an apsc sensor is something like 26-65mm. An APSC sensor actually might even get more out of this particular lens than a full frame will. The sharpness is INSANE.

The two mentioned EF-S lenses are not going to be less sharp. They might be even a tad bit sharper.

I'll just leave it at this, the only thing I think of when I see EF-s lenses is the fact that you can't use them on FF bodies, and when everyone says 'you should be spending more on your glass than your camera body' and 'invest in glass more' then I see much less of a reason to buy EF-s than to buy EF. You get the best of EF by getting the sweet spot center, you get a wider selection, you get weather sealing more often, you get might quality build, you get lenses that work on EF and EF-s, and more.

My vote is invest in EF and shy away from EF-s. The 17-40 f4 is fantastic if you can deal with the f4 part of it.

Weather sealing is a good point if you have a sealed crop body (I don't), and if you think you will need it.

Regarding the future possibility of an upgrade - I don't want to spend money on an option I'm not going to use for several years. And, who knows what magic EF lenses will be out there when I actually do upgrade - I might not even want the EF lenses anymore that I could buy today.

I did buy EF lenses for my crop camera, mostly because there was no EF-S equivalent in good enough quality. But for a general purpose zoom, I did go with one of the two mentioned EF-S lenses, and recommend doing so.

 

[BruinBear]

So i was in the same situation a few years ago when i started with my T3, moved to a 60D, and now with a 6D. I ended up buying a bunch of EF-S lenses throughout this time totalling ~2,000$, selling the used lenses as i upgraded to better lenses.

I just did a full calculation of money lost in the process, and my total monetary losses for that 2k was only 281$, and all of that was basically due to the sigma 30mm f/1.4's price drop last month.

All of my lenses i bought new first hand as well, just waited for deals on them.

Basically my point is buy the lens you need now and worry about full frame later. Canon lenses are very good at holding their value, 3rd party not so much but its not horrendous.

Also, for crop sensors, the 18-55 shitty kit lens is actually sharper than the 17-40 except in the very center. It also gets you IS, the 17-40 is better in build quality, color, contrast, and an extra stop at the long end. I would say definitely not worth the 5-6x price increase.

 

[Dantana]

For your zoom options, I would think you might want to wait and see what is being offered with the 70D in a kit. It may be an upgrade over what you have now at a good price in kit form. Maybe not. Won't know until they release that info.

As far as the EF, EF-S debate goes, I would agree with all those that recommend buying for what you shoot now, as far as zooms are concerned.

Of course, a 35mm, 85mm, or 200mm prime would be a nice pickup for both crop of FF.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Of course, a 35mm, 85mm, or 200mm prime would be a nice pickup for both crop of FF.

Equally of course, on APS-C, instead of those being a short wide, short telephoto, and moderate telephoto, they're instead a normal, moderate telephoto, and long telephoto....

b&

 

[tgara]

Future-proof your lenses. Get EF mounts and not EF-S.

 

[sagittariansrock]

You get the best of EF by getting the sweet spot center, you get a wider selection, you get weather sealing more often, you get might quality build, you get lenses that work on EF and EF-s, and more.

The sweet spot center issue is mostly theoretical for the 17-55/15-85 vs 17-40 question. Both the EF-S lenses are sharper all through even compared to the "sweet spot center" of the 17-40.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
(Mind you, my own 17-55 is much sharper than the tested sample).

Wider selection? Not in the standard zoom for crop sensor range. I think it's only the 17-40 and the 16-35 II in the EF lineup.

Weather sealing= Agreed, if that matters to you. I am assuming you have your non-weathersealed APS-C camera in a plastic baggie or something like that.

Build quality= I am a bit curious about this one. I know people like metal-bodied lenses but I am sure plastic lenses like the 15-85 and 17-55 will stand up to a lot of abuse. In fact, synthetic polymers are often more resistant to impact damage. Of, course the 17-40 and 16-35 has better ergonomics, but then you are comparing an L to a non-L. In case of the 17-40, you are paying for ergonomics whereas you are paying for IQ in case of the 15-85.

Future proofing? That is a vague concept. Who really knows about the future? I wouldn't be surprised if 100MP 20x zoom 1 billion ISO @ 20 fps is available in cell phones in a few years! Then all your EF lenses will be pretty darn redundant!

 

[pj1974]

I have used both FF and APS-C DSLRs for several years. I currently own a Canon 7D and Canon 350D... and have owned both EF and EF-S lenses since I got into DSLRs in 2005.

My current mainstay of "go-to-body" and lens combination is the Canon 7D with Canon 15-85mm. It's vastly superior than the 17-40 in IQ sharpness, focal length range at both wide and tele-end, usability, IS - and at least on-par USM. The only advantage of the 17-40 is a somewhat better build quality (also incorporating improved weather sealing).

When I was considering what lens to use as my walkaround for my 7D, I had owned a good copy of the EF 28-135mm - but it is not as good as the EF-S 15-85mm even at equivalent focal lengths. I have an EF-S 18-55mm (but a non IS version) so that's "ok" the IS version of the kit lens is better The newer EF-S 18-135mm STM is quite good (better than the non STM one).

Macro-wise, I went with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM, over above any 3rd party (mainly to do with AF and IQ). I chose the EF 100mm over the EF-S 60mm, really only due to preferring a longer working focal length when doing macro photography. I am glad I did... there was a small consideration that if can also use this lens on a FF.

I own an EF 70-300mm USM IS L - which is a truly great lens, and as photozone points out - is superior on a crop body (in terms of using the sweet spot / centre of the lens) - and gaining the 'crop factor' advantage, that is presents a 480mm equivalent image on a APS-C body. But even if this 70-300mm L would have been an EF-S... I still would have bought it!

Finally in UWA land, I own a Sigma 10-20mm HSM EX... which is a great lens. When I was considering UWAs, there was much less choice then than there is now. I went with a new Sigma 10-20 based on a much better price than I could get a new EF-S Canon 10-22mm USM for. My Sigma gives me sharp corner to corner images at the equivalent of 16mm in 35mm format.

Lens wise, I say buy what you can budget / ie what is affordable to you - and what you will use often now. That's my 2cents worth.

Paul

 

[greger]

Wait until the Canon announcement is out. Who knows what cameras or lenses will be announced. Then you will have new thoughts for a new post on what to buy. I have bought 3 EF lenses since I bought my 40D in March 2008. I bought my 7D in August 2012. I'm looking at the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 for my next lens because I need the reach. I have a 17-85 F4-5.6 EFS for my landscape shots. It suits my purposes, but I do know there are better lenses. Maybe later this month
there will be even more. ;D

 

[cszy67]

When picking up my 7D I had a similar discussion with my father, a professional photographer by trade. As he put it, "the money is in the glass." He provided several examples of camera bodies coming and going but a good lens is a good lens.

Spreading the difference in cost out over a few years and the difference is negligible.