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

[ebiggs1]

"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."

Yeah, off topic but I can and could not ever understand why Canon doesn't make certain lenses that seem to be a no brainer.  Of course the extremely popular 150-600mm comes to mind first. I had one of the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO Lens but sold it with my last crop camera. It was a delight to use and I loved it. However, Sigma dropped it so maybe others did not like it so much.

Back to more on topic, ef and ef-s lenses are totally different animals. An ef-s lens can never become a ef lens if nothing is changed.

[acc]

WOW! You must be a math wizard! 

[acc]

I realize all that. But  you verify the point I was making. I don't want a top of the line lens - I already have 4 L's, and (by the way), some non-L's are just as good as their L  counterparts. I just want a macro that doesn't cost as much as a refrigerator.

[kvbarkley]

The EF-S 18-135 comes close to 50-150 with a bit of bias to the wide end. 8^)

Then there is the EF-S 55 - 250, which just stretches to a long telephoto

[kvbarkley]

Why not use an extension tube?

[acc]

But it is only a 35mm if you don't use it. Once you use it, it's a 56. -The End

[ebiggs1]

"I just want a macro that doesn't cost as much as a refrigerator."

Don't we all !  

[acc]

I agree, and I know all that. But the average person does not know, or care, about the difference between a true macro and a lens you can focus real close to the subject. "Flat field," etc., is not relevant for them.

The true macro market is a niche market. People who want true macro would pay the difference for an ef. (I would.) And then we would have a lens that goes both ways. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"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.

---

I keep telling you guys, the way to keep your wife from complaining about your equipment purchases is to get her interested in photography too!

I'll admit that my suggestion can have embarrassing consequences: This year my wife had pictures accepted by the juried show at the Griffin and by a fairly competitive local calendar, while by submissions to those venues were ignored. OTOH, I received no flak when I bought myself a 5D Mark IV.

[ebiggs1]

"The EF-S 18-135 comes close to 50-150 with a bit of bias to the wide end."

I guees it depends on your deffinition of the work "close".  Not even close in my book.

"Then there is the EF-S 55 - 250, which just stretches to a long telephoto"

Although the ef-s 55-250mil is a nice lens, it isn't even in the same zip code as the Siggy 50-150mm.  A simple touch of each would prove that. Let alone actually using one. The Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 EX DC OS is essentially the Sigma 70-200mm with some minor changes inside.