Hello, I am new to the digital SLR world. That being said, I have a Canon XSi camera and the kit lens. What is the advantage of using the EF-S image stabilized lenses? What would happen if you use a different lens with out the built in IS? And if you do, how do you get the image stabilization feature. Sorry if this sounds strange, but im not too familiar with the lens systems yet. Thanks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EF-S Lens for Canon XSi
- Thread starter mkr160
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is no advantage of using EF-S over EF lenses (apart from perhaps weight). Canon bodies do not have IS so the advantage of IS lenses is that they compensate for some shaking on longer exposures. If you use a non-IS lens you have no stabilisation: you will then need a faster shutter speed (or a tripod) to get sharp shots (at least faster that you could get away with when using an IS lens).
EF-S lenses are lighter and cheaper than EF lenses, and have focal lengths that make more sense than EF lenses. image stabilization (IS) lets you handhold lenses slower than the 1/(focal length * 1.6) rule by at least one stop (varies with lens, photographer, and focal length). note that IS does NOT stop subject motion, only camera shake.
then you won't have image stabilization. Canon cameras do not have built-in stabilization, like Nikon and unlike Sony or Pentax.
all Canon lenses with image stabilization have "IS" at the end of their name. Sigma uses "OS" (optical stabilization), Tamron "VC" (vibration compensation).
In reality, most Canon lenses don't have IS, and so Sigma, Tamron, and others. None of my lenses have IS, including Canon EF 100mm f.2.8 Macro USM, EF 200mm f/2.8L USM, and 400mm f/5.6L USM. Also, I don't have any EF S lenses. Other lenses I have are Tokina 12-24mm f/4, and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I use a tripod or a monopod instead.
IS helps control the shake of your hand. For example, in low light situations without a flash. But if you shoot mostly outdoors, studio, or with lights, more than likely the added expense of IS is not needed.
What you may want to look into are lenses primes (50mm to 85mm or so) with apertures around f/1.4, f/1.8 for low-light shooting.
I'm a big fan of stabilization because I do a lot of low light shooting of subjects that are stationary. I'm also a big fan of prime lenses (fixed focal length, not zoom) because I love tack-sharp images. Unfortunately, you can't really have the best of both worlds with Canon unless you're buying very expensive telephoto lenses (200mm and longer).
So if you think you'll be shooting moving subjects in low light situations, then prime lenses are the answer. However, if you want to shoot interiors, cathedrals, museums, etc. where your subjects will be stationary and tripod use will be will be forbidden or highly inconvenient, then IS will help immensely.
The great thing about prime lenses is that the sharpness is there for you regardless of light conditions. Primes are nearly always sharper than zooms. They're also faster (that is, they have wide maximum apertures, such as f/1.2 through to f/2.8), which gives you the ability to play around with shallow depth of field (sharp subject against a blurry background).
Pardon the parenthetical explanations of simple terms, but I gather that the OP is rather new to photography.
So if you think you'll be shooting moving subjects in low light situations, then prime lenses are the answer. However, if you want to shoot interiors, cathedrals, museums, etc. where your subjects will be stationary and tripod use will be will be forbidden or highly inconvenient, then IS will help immensely.
The great thing about prime lenses is that the sharpness is there for you regardless of light conditions. Primes are nearly always sharper than zooms. They're also faster (that is, they have wide maximum apertures, such as f/1.2 through to f/2.8), which gives you the ability to play around with shallow depth of field (sharp subject against a blurry background).
Pardon the parenthetical explanations of simple terms, but I gather that the OP is rather new to photography.
Not to mention that Canon attempt at the EF-S range has been an utter disappointment. Only their wideangle and the 17-55 f/2.8 is good 
.
That's why people invests onto Canon primes or Canon Ls but if you are starting out and getting an EF-S lens, then stick with it first.
.That's why people invests onto Canon primes or Canon Ls but if you are starting out and getting an EF-S lens, then stick with it first.
Not to mention that Canon attempt at the EF-S range has been an utter disappointment. Only their wideangle and the 17-55 f/2.8 is good
That's why people invests onto Canon primes or Canon Ls but if you are starting out and getting an EF-S lens, then stick with it first.
I can say from firsthand experience that the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 is a superb lens--L-quality optics by most expert opinions. That lens is sharp enough to cut you!
For the most part, I think Canon's goal (or at least, what I imagine to be their goal) of offering cheap and relatively good value lenses for the average consumer has been met (although as we all know the 'average consumer' sticks with the kit lens for years and still manages to not know how to use it). The 18-55 IS kit lens and the 55-250 IS lens offer a pretty good combo that covers the "I want more zoom!" desire of most people while being relatively cheap and without scrimping heavily on the IQ. The inclusion of IS is also pretty consumer-friendly (and handy for everyone else, too!). And, for the serious shooters who know they'll be sticking to crop sensors for a while, the 10-22, 60mm macro and the 17-55 are there. The 17-85 could use some improvement from what I hear, though.Not to mention that Canon attempt at the EF-S range has been an utter disappointment. Only their wideangle and the 17-55 f/2.8 is good
That's why people invests onto Canon primes or Canon Ls but if you are starting out and getting an EF-S lens, then stick with it first.
Not to mention that Canon attempt at the EF-S range has been an utter disappointment. Only their wideangle and the 17-55 f/2.8 is good
That's why people invests onto Canon primes or Canon Ls but if you are starting out and getting an EF-S lens, then stick with it first.
I have to disagree with you. While I don't use EF S lenses, Canon does have several outstanding EF S lenses, including the 10-20mm.
The EF S 17-55 f/2.8 is a very nice lens, although more expensive than the 60. It's much like L glass at $999.00.
As far as kit lenses go, the 18-55mm IS isn't bad at all. Much better than the old non-IS version.
Not to mention that Canon attempt at the EF-S range has been an utter disappointment. Only their wideangle and the 17-55 f/2.8 is good
not really. the only real failure in the EF-S current range is the 17-85, since it offers little over the 18-55 IS, which is a great kit lens. the 18-200 is ok. other than that, all great lenses, be it for the price (55-250, 18-55) or overall (10-22, 17-55, 60).