Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017 [CR3]

[vangelismm]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

I really do not understand why someone is getting so torn up over the focal length. Its one thing to prefer and another to have a meltdown about it. 30mm or 35mm Who care, take a half step backwards or forwards.. Fixed..

Good its work for you. Let us know when you buy yours 35mm 2.8 IS M.

 

[mrzero]

This is so disappointing. I understand the desire to fill a slot between the inexpensive 40mm 2.8 pancake and the mid-range 35mm 2.0 IS, but I don't understand prioritizing that over the complete lack of wide angle primes. There are no reasonably-priced, current, fast, autofocus prime lenses for EF-S wider than 20mm (and "current" is a stretch there). A Canon branded, autofocus, 2.8 prime, no IS, anywhere from 10 to 15mm, and reasonably priced would be a huge hit on EF-S. Ideally, they'd have a 10mm AND a 15mm, hitting 16mm and 24mm equivalent spots.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

If M stands for "Marco"

Then the next lens will be designated P for "Polo"?

Why not? Bet let's go further! There could be an EF-S 60mm f/2.8F for Flowers, an EF-S 300mm f/2.8B for Beetles, an EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8-4S and an EF-S 10-18mm f/2.8S for landScapes, an EF-S ##mm f/1.4A for Astro photography and an EF-S 55-300mm f/4W for Wildlife.

This list of you is wonderful. I would only make small changes:

EF-S 80mm F2.8 Macro IS Flowers
EF-S 300mm F5.6 Macro IS Beetles
EF-S 15-45mm F2.8 IS landScapes
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 IS landScapes
EF-S 12mm F1.4 Astro
EF-S 100-350mm F4-5.6 IS Wildlife

 

[ahsanford]

Oh snap, title change! It's a CR3 now. So it's a 35mm crop lens for sure.

I could not find a non stock photo of a son being consoled by his father to CR3-meme, so you just get my normal CR3 meme today.

- A

 

[magarity]

Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?

Considering that there are lenses like Samyang 16mm F2, Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 and Tokina 14-20mm F2, it is perfectly possible. But it looks like the glass economy is quite small in EF-S lenses wider than 24mm, and Canon prefers to make them compatible with full frame at once.

 

[Maximilian]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

If M stands for "Marco"

Then the next lens will be designated P for "Polo"?

You got me
Keep typing errors for yourself

 

[Luds34]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

And with the 28's, one is sharp and one is well...not sharp and full of CA.

I'll respectfully disagree. The interwebs loves to throw the 28mm f/1.8 under the bus but it isn't a bad lens by any stretch. Sure if you pixel peep f/1.8 can be a bit soft but it's amazing how much better it is at f/2 and f/2.2. Throw in the small form factor, light weight, USM, internal focusing, and it is a nice little lens for crop or full frame.

 

[neonlight]

Well ... f/2.8 is too slow for a standard prime. Must be a macro. My twopenn'orth is on a macro you can stick on backwards. And probably get 1:2 at least (this way round = 2x life size BTW. I use subject:image ratio else it would be 0.5!!!)

 

[ahsanford]

Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?

It's entirely a company decision. They could make huge pickle jar lenses for EF-S if they wanted to.

- A

 

[funkboy]

my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is better

Hopefully since this is EF-S & f/2.8 it'll be nice & small (please let it be a pancake , & nice & cheap...

 

[9VIII]

I hate to say it, but I think this is just as likely to be a lens with some kind of image softening effect as anything.

Fuji actually went out of their way to release a 56mm f1.2 APD, the primary feature of the lens is a softer image.
Edit: I almost forgot the Canon 135mm Soft Focus lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx)
Not to mention the small resurgence of optically poor but classic lenses.

Given that women taking selfies is still one of the primary demographics of consumer level SLR bodies...

Maybe this is a "Makeup" focused lens designed to smooth out the wrinkles in your face.
Chances are it would actually be a pretty solid marketing tactic.

 

[Jopa]

"M" is for "mufakin' cool". Just my 5c.

 

[scrup]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

And with the 28's, one is sharp and one is well...not sharp and full of CA.

I'll respectfully disagree. The interwebs loves to throw the 28mm f/1.8 under the bus but it isn't a bad lens by any stretch. Sure if you pixel peep f/1.8 can be a bit soft but it's amazing how much better it is at f/2 and f/2.2. Throw in the small form factor, light weight, USM, internal focusing, and it is a nice little lens for crop or full frame.

I owned the 28 1.8, paid a good price for it. Fast focusing but images were terrible, it sharpens up at f4 but I could just use a zoom so there was no point. Sold it and got half my money back.

 

[veng]

I just can't see how this lens makes any sense. If it was a 35mm f/2.8 w/o IS and it was priced at 100-150$ and had a better magnification ratio than the 40, maybe? With IS, I can't imagine the price is going to be that much lower than the 35 f/2 IS and the question would become why wouldn't you just get the f/2. Because you want better maximum magnification? A 35mm lens is going to give you a really poor working distance so it's not going to be a master of nothing. Just can't see how to get excited by this lens which is a real let down seeing how I was hoping for something actually wide angle given the rumors.

 

[Boyer U. Klum-Cey]

Perhaps, the "M" is intended to be a silent letter, eh?

 

[slclick]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

And with the 28's, one is sharp and one is well...not sharp and full of CA.

I'll respectfully disagree. The interwebs loves to throw the 28mm f/1.8 under the bus but it isn't a bad lens by any stretch. Sure if you pixel peep f/1.8 can be a bit soft but it's amazing how much better it is at f/2 and f/2.2. Throw in the small form factor, light weight, USM, internal focusing, and it is a nice little lens for crop or full frame.

I owned the 28 1.8, paid a good price for it. Fast focusing but images were terrible, it sharpens up at f4 but I could just use a zoom so there was no point. Sold it and got half my money back.

I never said anything about reviews, I added my 2 cents from owning it.

 

[ahsanford]

I just can't see how this lens makes any sense. If it was a 35mm f/2.8 w/o IS and it was priced at 100-150$ and had a better magnification ratio than the 40, maybe? With IS, I can't imagine the price is going to be that much lower than the 35 f/2 IS and the question would become why wouldn't you just get the f/2. Because you want better maximum magnification? A 35mm lens is going to give you a really poor working distance so it's not going to be a master of nothing. Just can't see how to get excited by this lens which is a real let down seeing how I was hoping for something actually wide angle given the rumors.

The new lens will be either be smaller/lighter, inexpensive, or offer new functionality. Or some combination of the three. The M in particular has me wonder if it might be mount-reversible (like others have said) or possibly have the macro lighting built in.

As for IS being expensive, that certainly is true with L lenses, but often not so with EF-S lenses. See list here from B&H of all IS EF-S lenses Canon sells -- many are super affordable. (No idea why the pancake is on that list, which lacks IS; I guess the website has it filed incorrectly.)

As for why not to get the 35mm f/2 IS USM -- which a wonderful instrument -- instead of this new lens, we don't know yet. It could just be a fairly unexciting lens like many (presently) think it might be, but it might have some new hotness that dramatically raises its desirability. We shall see.

- A

 

[FECHariot]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

Perhaps you missed my point. I suggest you jump into a swimming pool with some friends...

Yep that went so far over his head that it didn't even mess his hair up.

 

[veng]

I just can't see how this lens makes any sense. If it was a 35mm f/2.8 w/o IS and it was priced at 100-150$ and had a better magnification ratio than the 40, maybe? With IS, I can't imagine the price is going to be that much lower than the 35 f/2 IS and the question would become why wouldn't you just get the f/2. Because you want better maximum magnification? A 35mm lens is going to give you a really poor working distance so it's not going to be a master of nothing. Just can't see how to get excited by this lens which is a real let down seeing how I was hoping for something actually wide angle given the rumors.

The new lens will be either be smaller/lighter, inexpensive, or offer new functionality. Or some combination of the three. The M in particular has me wonder if it might be mount-reversible (like others have said) or possibly have the macro lighting built in.

As for IS being expensive, that certainly is true with L lenses, but often not so with EF-S lenses. See list here from B&H of all IS EF-S lenses Canon sells -- many are super affordable. (No idea why the pancake is on that list, which lacks IS; I guess the website has it filed incorrectly.)

As for why not to get the 35mm f/2 IS USM -- which a wonderful instrument -- instead of this new lens, we don't know yet. It could just be a fairly unexciting lens like many (presently) think it might be, but it might have some new hotness that dramatically raises its desirability. We shall see.

- A

250$ until you get to the 18-55 STM on your list, then upto 300 gets you a few more. The 35 f/2 IS is only 250$ more than the 10-18 or the 55-250 STM (BTW, I own both, they're great lenses for the price). But then again that's the meat of it. The 10-18 is a lens that is half the cost of the 10-22, is much lighter, actually has IS where the 10-22 doesn't. The 55-250 of course is a hell of a lot cheaper and lighter than a 70-200 f/4. But the 35f/2 isn't heavy by any stretch. It's also not large. It's not as small as a pancake, that's for sure, but with the extra elements to add IS, this prime isn't going to be pancake small either. It's unlikely to be half of the cost 35 f/2 IS, half the weight, or half the size. Oh well, we'll see. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised and the M will stand for magnificent and I'll be forced to go add one to my collection. I don't see it being possible for it to make me sell my 35 f/2 IS however.