EF vs EF-S practical difference ?

So this is a topic it's hard to get into without strong opinion. Most of the technical issues have been covered pretty well. I'll mention a practical situation for me that marks why sometimes I'll go for the EF-S lens over the EF

It almost always comes down to *Wide Angle*

Up until recently I did not have any IS lens that was also fast for indoor shoting. I have an old Sigma zoom that was fixed f2.8 but it never got great results and had no IS, so often my stabilized Tamron F3.5 18-270 could get a better picture even though it's a slower lens and lower image quality.

That Tamron has been my do-it-all-okay lens for a long time. It's been down many a backpacking trail and probably will be for a long time to come. Why? Because it's lightweight for APS-C sensors. When every gram matters like a multi-day backpacking trip that means a great deal.

What I wanted was something that works well with no or minimum flash for indoors shots and didn't lose the wide angle end of the Tamron.  I could lose the extreme telephoto end as that's not really as big a concern to me indoors.  In the EF lenses that doesn't really exist for APS-C gear mostly limited by the wide angle requirement.  Most EF zooms are going to end at 24mm as the wide end which is pretty far from a wide-angle view on APS-C.

I ended up getting the Canon 17-55 f2.8. It covers that range that I wanted at the sacrifice of a little more telephoto than I wanted to give up but with excellent image quality at an affordable price tag.

but I plan to eventually acquire the 70-200L f2.8 IS to cover that telephoto need and maybe dabble with a bit of outdoor wildlife with a 1.4X extender.

I don't see myself ever shelling over the cash for a full-frame body. APS-C has been good for my needs and lets me carry smaller lighter lenses. I would be highly unlikely to go backpacking with the 17-55/70-200 combo because of weight. Here again, that lightweight Tamron 18-270 makes all kinds of sense for me out in the bush.