EF vs EF-S practical difference ?

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

ed rader wrote:

you won't get UW with EF. you won't get standard zoom with EF.

Speaking of misinformation, Canon has an EF 11-24 fisheye lens, I believe also an 10 mm primerectilinear lens, and some EF 16-35 mm lenses. Also some EF 24-100 mm lenses.

Yeah, thst's misinformation. 

The 11-24 is rectilinear. No 10mm rectilinear prime exists (shortest is 14mm). Yes, there are 16-35mm lenses, but no 24-100s (being a bit pedantic here, they're 24-105s). There IS a fisheye zoom, the 8-15.

I think the previous poster meant that no EF lens provides an ultrawide option on APS-C. Apart from the11-24, that's correct; 16-35 isn't ultrawide on APS-C, nor is 14mm, and 24-105 isn't even ultrawide on full frame. The fisheye zoom does offer a diagonal fisheye option for APS-C, but people don't generally refer to a non-rectillinear lens as an ultrawide.

So the 11-24 - it's a remarkable and wonderful lens, but it's enormous, heavy and very expensive. Yes, you could use it as an ultrawide on APS-C, but it's a perfect example of the difference between EF and EF-S (and even more so, EF-M). There are 2 EF-S lenses that are a fraction of the size, weight and cost and that are actually a fraction wider, the 10-18 and 10-22 - they don't have the same optical quality, but are not bad at all and are much more suited to APS-C cameras in terms of size, weight and budget.

So yeah, Ed could have been clearer, and is technically incorrect about the 11-24, but that less actually is the perfect example of the difference anyway.