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.

[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

[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.

[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. 

[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.)

[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.

[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.)

[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]

"I keep telling you guys, the way to keep your wife from complaining about your equipment purchases ..."

Way over that Robert. Mine got over it many years, I mean decades ago.  I guess it may have something to do with the, "I need it for my work", thingy.  Now I doubt she can even tell if one comes or goes.

[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.