"John A. Stovall" wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:41:37 +1300, Colin D
wrote:



"John A. Stovall" wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

wrote:
What are canon EF-S lenses? What is the difference between EF-S & EF lenses?
Are EF-S optimized for digital cameras, to take into account the 1.6x
conversion factor on small-framed sensors?

Yes. EF-S lenses are optimized for digital cameras. They
are mechanically set up so that they are difficult or
impossible to mount on full-frame cameras.


You seem to forget there are Full Frame Digital cameras.

The reason they are made not to mount on FF Canon bodies is they are a
compromise for small sensors.

Not exactly. They are designed for the APS-C sensor. There is no
compromise involved.

An APS-C sensor by its existence is a compromise.

There speaks a true 35mm Luddite.

You realize there was a time when the 35mm negative size was looked down
on as a compromise, as was in turn anything smaller than about 10x8 -
and probably still is by some.

You are in peril of ignoring modern advances in image capture, and of
the uses for which APS_C sensors are designed.

Everyone seems to want to stack up an APS sensor against films like
Velvia. Not too many want to contest the point with 800 or 1600 ISO
films though - why is that, do you think? Because a sensor of that
size, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, whatever, will lick the living daylights
out of any color film above about 400 ISO, and give 200 and even 100 ISO
films a bad fright.

Compromise is in your mind.

Colin D.