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

[FECHariot]

The more I think about it, unless M stands for some device that acts exactly opposite a 2x Tc turning the 35/2.8 into a 17/1.4, I don't care what M stands for.

So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.

 

[slclick]

This is whack

 

[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.

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.

Nor did I say anything about reviews either.

I haven't shot the lens for quite some time, mostly used it on crop back when I really was a novice. But I still think the optical quality is more than good enough. These are before I knew how to post process. All shot at f/2.2 or faster.

IMG_3067 by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

20130610-IMG_3533 by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

20140310-IMG_8758-T2i by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

 

[Talys]

So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.

But the Nikon 35/1.8 has no image stabilization, or am I mistaken? I'm not really that up to speed on Nikon lenses.

I think there are some who would take 2.8 IS over 1.8 no IS. Personally, I would, if I had to choose (especially after I agonized over 24-70, and ultimately bought f/4IS). I quite like 2.8 -- I think it finds a nice place between capturing enough depth of field and isolating the subject, and of course, all the IQ and light in the world is worth nothing if the image is blurry.

 

[ahsanford]

So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.

I think there are some who would take 2.8 IS over 1.8 no IS.

+1

Depends on the application, but yes, I generally prefer [slower + IS] over [faster - IS]. I own the 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS and both are wonderful. Further, on the zoom side, I sold my 24-70 f/2.8L I for the 24-70 f/4L IS and never regretted it.

If you are shooting handheld + low light + static subjects + no flash, it's really no contest. The 3-ish stops of IS are effectively 'virtual speed' to give you the latitude you need to get the shot. The classic 'fast prime' without IS, in comparison, would need to use a higher ISO to do the same job.

But it obviously depends on what you shoot -- one tool is not categorically better than the other:

• A handheld available light of a church nave --> go slow + IS.
  
  
• Street shooting at night --> go fast prime (presume moving people are involved)

...you get the idea.

- A

 

[Berowne]

M = Movie.

 

[Dvash7]

What if they got it wrong and the M and S are actually switched
It's an EF-M 35mm f/2.8 S IS STM
Now, what does the S stand for? ;D

 

[midluk]

Now, what does the S stand for? ;D

Slow

 

[LonelyBoy]

I think the M will not just be for Macro - they have Macro lenses already, and even macro lenses with lights, and they don't follow that naming scheme (and Canon is an almost-religious adherent to their naming scheme, hence all the "II" and "III" models). So, I will guess it will match the other place they use the standalone letter M and have a dual mount of some sort for the EOS M. And somehow it will be a switchable mount, not reversible with one end being a crazy macro.

 

[Sharlin]

L = Large
M = Medium
S = Small

Obvious!

 

[ExodistPhotography]

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?

Cost, more glass means more expensive. Most people will not pay big bucks for a APS-C lens only.. Those that will buy Sigma..

 

[ecka]

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?

Cost, more glass means more expensive. Most people will not pay big bucks for a APS-C lens only.. Those that will buy Sigma..

Not really. For example, EF 55mm F2 would need near as much glass, as EF-S 35mm F1.4, while the cheap EF50/1.8 is literally a prototype (kind of) of an EF-S 28/1.2 and it will act like one, after Metabones produces a SpeedBooster for the M.

 

[ecka]

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.

Nor did I say anything about reviews either.

I haven't shot the lens for quite some time, mostly used it on crop back when I really was a novice. But I still think the optical quality is more than good enough. These are before I knew how to post process. All shot at f/2.2 or faster.

IMG_3067 by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

20130610-IMG_3533 by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

20140310-IMG_8758-T2i by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

The EF28/1.8USM is not a landscaping lens by my standards. I'd rather shoot with my 40 pancake and stitch later, than deal with the soft edges . It's not terrible though. However, it is beautiful at close to medium distances, portraits, street, pets and stuff. The bokeh is really nice (for a wide angle lens) and it seems even sharper in those genres.

BTW, nice shots

 

[rrcphoto]

I'm stumped to be honest, unless it's some hybrid EF-M and EF-S mount lens. mount one way for EF-S, turn it around and mount it the other way for EF-M.

M as Macro doesn't make sense - canon doesn't give a distinction to any other macro outside of calling it "macro" so why wouldn't they call this "macro" if it was indeed a macro.

usually canon puts the focus motor as the identifier with stabilization. ie: STM, IS STM, IS USM, IS, etc.

the only other designation they have used is "macro" but it already exists, staying it's M for macro. I can't see it. it's a pretty stupid idea if that's it.

my only other thought is since the identifier is usually the AF motor, maybe this is a lens cap 35mm /2.8 and it's manual focus only or some form of new micro motor.

I also suspect this is another pancake. a 35mm/2.8 pancake is easier to make than a 24/2.8.

that actually would end up being a nice pancake suit - 24,35,40.


Edit: if the name is EF-S 35mm 2.8 M IS STM then the M can't be a function of the AF motor. so ignore all the rambling and I really have no idea. but I doubt it's macro.

 

[slclick]

Micro STM

 

[rrcphoto]

Micro STM

they already have that, and are just calling it STM.

Edit: if the name is EF-S 35mm 2.8 M IS STM then the M can't be a function of the AF motor.

 

[FECHariot]

So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.

But the Nikon 35/1.8 has no image stabilization, or am I mistaken? I'm not really that up to speed on Nikon lenses.

I think there are some who would take 2.8 IS over 1.8 no IS. Personally, I would, if I had to choose (especially after I agonized over 24-70, and ultimately bought f/4IS). I quite like 2.8 -- I think it finds a nice place between capturing enough depth of field and isolating the subject, and of course, all the IQ and light in the world is worth nothing if the image is blurry.

The thing is you can already get 2.8 stabilized with Canon because they have an excellent 17-55 zoom and the Sigma 17-50 is also excellent for half the cost of the 17-55. From there why buy a stack of slow 2.8 primes (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 40/2.8) to do what the one zoom can do for you and more? Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point? I guess if you are happy with 5.6 zooms to compliment 2.8 primes, but when you talk equivalent apertures on crop, you are really talking about 9.0 zooms complimenting 4.5 primes and how many f4 primes have you seen in the full frame world that were not UWA 17mm or supper tele 500 and plus?

 

[ahsanford]

Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point?

For a common max aperture, primes are smaller, lighter, and (almost always) sharper than zooms.

- A

 

[FECHariot]

Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point?

For a common max aperture, primes are smaller, lighter, and (almost always) sharper than zooms.

- A

One prime might be smaller and lighter but a bag full of primes will not be. And people in general are really too caught up with sharpness: Most never print or display big enough to notice the difference. If you just want to look at pixel level sharpness at 200% then knock yourself out with a bag full of slow primes...

 

[Sporgon]

Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point?

For a common max aperture, primes are smaller, lighter, and (almost always) sharper than zooms.

- A

One prime might be smaller and lighter but a bag full of primes will not be. And people in general are really too caught up with sharpness: Most never print or display big enough to notice the difference. If you just want to look at pixel level sharpness at 200% then knock yourself out with a bag full of slow primes...

Personally I don't subscribe to the "bag full of primes is heavy" argument. In use you wouldn't replace say a 24-70 with six primes, you would probably have a 28 and a 50 perhaps, and you lose the versatility of FoV that the zoom offers. I guess this new lens is not aimed at your typical CR member, it's for people who own a Rebel and want a small, cheap but sharp lens. Your typical 18-55 lens is around f/5 at 35mm, so a 35mm offering a high IQ at f/2.8 would offer enough visible difference in the picture to make it worthwhile for many, I'm sure.