>> |
Anonymous
1) Margarine is not that noticeable than butter. "The difference in image quality is not that noticable".
That means in your mind, there is no difference. Otherwise, you would have said something else.
>> Maybe because there is more variety?
Um, wow.
UWA for crop: Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24 UWA for 35mm: 14mm, 16-35, 17-40, 12-24
Standard for crop: 17-55, 17-85, 17-50 Standard for 35mm: 24-70, 24-105, 28-135
I'm not even going to bother with telephoto, you get the fucking picture.
>> Maybe because someone cannot afford the EF lenses?
Uh, there are plenty of inexpensive EF lenses. Oh HEY, the 50mm 1.8 for one. Wow. Maybe you're thinking of L, idiot.
>> Maybe because they can source the EF-S lenses cheaper than the EF lenses?
As stated earlier, 10-22 vs. 17-40 is about the same price. 17-85. vs 28-135 is about the same price, hell the 28-135 is cheaper. 17-55 vs. 24-70 or 24-105 is about the same price. But the 17-55 does have 2.8 and IS.
If you want to use a 40D with a 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, that's your problem.
>> Maybe because they are readily accessible in stores because many other people get the EF-S lenses?
Running out of arguments there? Sheesh. Most people buy online and stores will probably have more EF lenses than EF-S, because you know uh, the mount has been here since the 80s.
|