NEW: EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM

[Waddizzle]

This lens sounds like it has potential to become a big hit for users of EF-S lenses.  It's wide.  It's fast.  It has IS.  Plus, it's a macro capable of life size reproduction.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-s-35mm-f28-macro-is-stm-lens

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Maybe it was me that wasn't "clear" but..........."It's wide.  It's fast.  It has IS.  Plus, it's a macro capable of life size reproduction."

I must have not understood the first post.  

---

"I'm not looking at it as a macro lens as much as I'm looking at it as a fast, wide angle prime. The EF 35mm f/2 IS USM costs about 50% more than this EF-S lens. You raise a good poit about focusing distance.

I figured that you would need to be very close to the subject with a mere 35mm focal length to get 1:1. That's the big advantage of the longer focal lengths, you can back away from the subject. You cannot get that close to any and everything."

That was the third post.

[acc]

There is no rational reason why this lens is not an ef. And spare me the worn out, mundane Canon logic. I have heard it all before, and it has more to do with some lame stuff about the imagery associatied with distinguishing pro gear from amateur gear than with appealing to the consumer/prosumer. 

I was a pro who in his old age now specializes - for fun - in macro woirk, and I would love to be able to use this on my "old" 5d. If the guy next to me shooting flies and butterflies with his Rebel T whatever has one as well, why should I care? Unless I am an elitist nincompoop. (Which now that I think about it most pros are.) I am lucky to also have an 80d but that is beside the point. What if I didn't? I should I have to spend a ton of $$ to get a true macro for my full framer? Come on, Canon. Get your heads out of your collective xyz's. 

PS: My first Canon was an Ftb in 1972, and if my wife know how many bodies and lenses I bought over the years she would dehorn me, so you Canon muckety muck designers should LISTEN TO ME! I have earned the right! (They won't, of course.)

[acc]

Their specs say "Closest Focusing Distance .43 ft. / 0.13m"

Whatever the hell that means. wouldn't hurt to give us the inches.

[acc]

A 35mm ef-s is nowhere near a wide angle lens. Truth in labelling would be better served calling it a 56mm lens, because in reality that is what it is. Of course, if it was a true 35mm, that isn't really wide angle either. To get true wide angle on a crop sensor camera, you have to go down to around 17mm. (Forgive me if you already know all this - just making sure you don't waste any money.)

[ebiggs1]

"There is no rational reason why this lens is not an ef."

Except the focusing system is totally different. That means it would have to have a total redesign of its internals. I agree Canon could make an ef lens like it but it aint this one.

"...if my wife know how many bodies and lenses I bought over the years she would dehorn me..."

I can relate but mine knows!   I have been selling them off as old age sits in. So, I am down to around a dozen now.

[ebiggs1]

"...wouldn't hurt to give us the inches."

A little over 5 inches.  Multiply the length value by 12,  .43 x 12 = 5.25

[ebiggs1]

"...better served calling it a 56mm lens, because in reality that is what it is."

No it is not. We have to disagree here. It is a 35mm lens. It will always be a 35mm lens no matter what camera it may happen to fit.  Whether it was/is a good idea to make a lens like this and call it whatever, the market will tell. Folks that buy and use any of the crop sensor cameras should be aware of the apparent increase in FL.

BTW, Canon already has a wonderful, top of the mark, 35mm lens for FF.  The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens. However, close focus is about twice and not a macro.

[kvbarkley]

It is an ef-s because the image circle only fits the smaller sensor, That implies that vignetting and distortion can greatly degrade in the area between the crop frame and the full frame.

And it is not a 56mm lens. Optically it is a 35 mm. For whatever reason, we use the field of view of the FF "35mm" sensor as a reference.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@acc wrote:

A 35mm ef-s is nowhere near a wide angle lens. Truth in labelling would be better served calling it a 56mm lens, because in reality that is what it is. Of course, if it was a true 35mm, that isn't really wide angle either. To get true wide angle on a crop sensor camera, you have to go down to around 17mm. (Forgive me if you already know all this - just making sure you don't waste any money.)

---

Yeah, we know all that. But the problem with your main argument is that it's harder to design a 35mm f/2.8 macro lens for a full-frame camera than for an APS-C camera. And a 35mm EF macro would be sure to be bigger and heavier, as well as more expensive, than its EF-S counterpart.

If you want to gripe about unjustified omissions in Canon's product line, how about noting how crop-frame users get short shrift in the moderate telephoto range? The 70-200s are really too long for an APS-C camera, especially since mid-range EF-S lenses top out at around 55 mm, leaving an annoying gap. What's needed is an EF-S 50-150mm f/2.8. Sigma used to make one (I still have mine), but to my knowledge Canon never has. They must think it wouldn't sell.

[acc]

But I say why not START with a design for an ef? Then we would have a lens that will work with crop AND full frame sensors. And if it results in a lens that costs more, us Canon nuts would still buy it. The macro market is kind of a niche market anyway. Your average person doesn't care about having a true macro, they just want to be able to get real close to their subject. (I have 13 fd lenses; all still perfect, by the way. I dropped my Compact Macro ef 2.5 from 2 feet the other day. It's now trash. If I drop my old 3.5 fd macro from the same distance, it wouldn't know the difference.)