05-23-2017 08:04 PM
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.
05-24-2017 06:19 PM
35mm is about normal for EF-S. 35 * 1.6 = 56mm(eq)
And do you know how close to the lens 1:1 reproduction is going to be?
That I cannot say. I noticed it was on the B&H web site. The MFD is around 6 inches.
05-24-2017 06:55 PM
The 1:1 working distance from the front of the lens is 3" - it really needs those macro lights!
In comparison, the EF-S 60mm Macro has a working distance ot 5".
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.
05-24-2017 07:09 PM
Again, 35mm on EF-S is not wide angle. it is a 56mm equivalent, or slightly longer than normal.
Yes, I know that. But, it is almost as close to a "normal" 50mm lens equivalent that you can get from Canon.
05-25-2017 09:25 AM
I'm just trying to figure out the "why"? WIth all the lenses Canon could spend time on developing? It is not fast for a 35mm. You have to be too close for a macro. If you have to do something in this vein why not update the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens. Not interested.
05-25-2017 11:07 AM
The only thing it brings to the party are the built in macro lights. I think this is actually the first foodie lens!
But to continue Ernie's point, the reason the macro lights are needed is that you have to get so close, right?