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 I was suggesting was the close working distance opposed to the longer focal length macros.  This new 35mil may be a nice lens but certainly a pain to use as a macro.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

What I was suggesting was the close working distance opposed to the longer focal length macros.  This new 35mil may be a nice lens but certainly a pain to use as a macro.

---

I've been pretty clear about the fact that it being a macro lens is not the reason I like it.  I think it will make a pretty good prime.  Not very fast, but fast enough for tourist mode.

[ebiggs1]

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.  

[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]

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]

"...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.

[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]

Why not use an extension tube?

[ebiggs1]

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

Don't we all !  

[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.