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

[slclick]

Ok so back to naming schemes and designations.
The 'M' in question is placed where the well known 'L' is after the EF. So it's not calling out anything to do with stabilization or the AF motor. It's a ranking of sorts.
The first of a new line? 19 days.

 

[Luds34]

Exactly, I would rather see Canon put effort into upgrading the now getting old 17-55 than putting out a bunch of slow primes. And if they want to put out primes, great, at least make them faster than 2.8.

+1

I think it's great to see crop shooters getting a little love from Canon with a dedicated prime. But it has a bit of "dead on arrival" being so slow at f/2.8.

Also the 35mm FL. As has been mentioned, there are a ton of actual lenses available in the 35mm range. Give APS-C folks a fast (at least f/2) 35mm full frame equivalent. That's what is missing, the wide angle primes. Because right now they can mount a 35, 50, 85 to give them FF equivalents of 50, 85, 135. It's the 24mm and 35mm of the world that are missing.

 

[ahsanford]

So, I've crunched the numbers and here's where we stand...

- A

 

[Talys]

Maybe the M is in there for...

EF-S 35mm F/2.8 M IS STM

;D

Or... "Made you guess!"

 

[bhf3737]

Perhaps the M means "AF Microadjustable". Meaning that one can perform AF microadjustment on the lens itself by turning a knob or so to get a perfect focus in case of back or front focusing issues. If so, it is a novel technology, i.e. other lenses or companies seem not having it. It makes sense for primes and also it makes sense for EF-S cameras, like Rebels, that have no AF microadjustment built into the camera itself. Perhaps Canon has decided to introduce this technology and test it on this lens and then spread it later on.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I agree they are quite consistent with naming, but if it's an EF-S and EF-M hybrid, why not EF-S-M, or EF-S/M? Putting the M way down the name makes no sense.

Incidentally, for those saying 'Movie', given Canon went with C for Cinema line bodies and lenses, I doubt it.

I still half believe it's a mistranslation, poor communication, or some letters are missing. But we'll see - it's certainly generated a lot more interest than it might otherwise have done!

 

[scyrene]

I didn't say you should replace your zoom with a bag of primes. Use one and move your feet.

"People in general are really too caught up with sharpness" = your priorities are what's the world's priorities should be. That's selfish and myopic. I could argue "people in general don't like to move their feet" or "people in general don't like a challenge" in a similar manner, but that does everyone's differing needs a disservice.

There is a time for a zoom and there is a time for a prime. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But I am saying primes offer more to photographers than having faster max aperture than a zoom.

- A

Sorry the foot zooming thing doesn't work. Even if you don't need to walk yourself back off a cliff or into another room, you still change the relative perspective of items in the shot and this might be very important to what you are trying to get in the shot.

Now I definitely don't claim that my needs = everyone elses, but from my needs, I don't see where a 56mm 4.5 equivalent lens is something all that great. Let's assume M does stand for macro, Canon in 1979 had a 50mm 3.5 macro lens 2/3 a stop faster than this one in equivalent terms. Nearly 40 years later they are putting out essentially slower lenses.

Of course one thing that has changed in that time is the maximum useable ISO speed. I happen to love wide aperture lenses, but one reason they exist is when film ISO was limited, they allowed more light into the camera. Now ISOs go several stops higher than most film, it's not such an issue in that regard.

 

[barracuda]

Ok so back to naming schemes and designations.
The 'M' in question is placed where the well known 'L' is after the EF. So it's not calling out anything to do with stabilization or the AF motor. It's a ranking of sorts.
The first of a new line? 19 days.

I like this. If you look up the English/Japanese translation for "Luxury", "Magnificence" shows up. So perhaps the "M" designation is Canon's luxury version for the EF-S line and perhaps the unique feature of this lens is that it's the first EF-S lens with weather sealing. This would be a useful feature for a video/STM lens.

 

[slclick]

Ok so back to naming schemes and designations.
The 'M' in question is placed where the well known 'L' is after the EF. So it's not calling out anything to do with stabilization or the AF motor. It's a ranking of sorts.
The first of a new line? 19 days.

I like this. If you look up the English/Japanese translation for "Luxury", "Magnificence" shows up. So perhaps the "M" designation is Canon's luxury version for the EF-S line and perhaps the unique feature of this lens is that it's the first EF-S lens with weather sealing. This would be a useful feature for a video/STM lens.

Ahh, a new take on the mysterious M. A high end EF-S class of glass. I like it. Maybe it's got the blue goo.

 

[memoriaphoto]

Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens

This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point.

Canon needs to open up the apertures on EF-S lenses. Like right now...

 

[KristinnK]

Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens

This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point.

Canon needs to open up the apertures on EF-S lenses. Like right now...

It's even worse. It's a 56mm f/4.5. I repeat, a "nifty-fifty" with a max aperture of 4.5. That's two and a half stops worse than what full-frame people get for 125$. With a 2.5x larger image circle. I can't decide if it's comically absurd or just depressingly sad. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding, that the lens is actually a 10mm (16mm FF equiv.) f2.8 astro lens, or a fast 35mm f1.4 normal prime.

If this is really what will be unveiled in April I'm convinced Canon took the time, effort and money to develop this lens purely to spite enthusiasts that use crop-frame Canon cameras.

 

[scyrene]

Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens

This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point.

Canon needs to open up the apertures on EF-S lenses. Like right now...

It's even worse. It's a 56mm f/4.5. I repeat, a "nifty-fifty" with a max aperture of 4.5. That's two and a half stops worse than what full-frame people get for 125$. With a 2.5x larger image circle. I can't decide if it's comically absurd or just depressingly sad. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding, that the lens is actually a 10mm (16mm FF equiv.) f2.8 astro lens, or a fast 35mm f1.4 normal prime.

If this is really what will be unveiled in April I'm convinced Canon took the time, effort and money to develop this lens purely to spite enthusiasts that use crop-frame Canon cameras.

If it has even 0.5x macro functionality, it will be useful for all sorts of things. I've seen plenty of people saying that f/2.8 is needlessly wide for macro lenses on these forums. I happen to disagree, but if that is its speciality - with a built-in light especially - it'll be great for casual food/product photography, selfies, and suchlike.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens

If it has even 0.5x macro functionality, it will be useful for all sorts of things. I've seen plenty of people saying that f/2.8 is needlessly wide for macro lenses on these forums. I happen to disagree, but if that is its speciality - with a built-in light especially - it'll be great for casual food/product photography, selfies, and suchlike.

+1. The 'compact macro' (i.e. 1:2, 0.5x, etc.) seems destined to get a healthy wind in its sails from food photography, and not from pro food photogs doing lit/staged work. Tourists/foodies/traveler bloggers who take shots of their food from their seat will use this.

That is, of course, presuming the M is for macro. We still don't know that yet.

- A

 

[TeT]

What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?

Cost just $ 100?
Good sharpness and contrast when wide open.
Very low chromatic aberration.
Vignette 1/3 stop.
Zero distortion.
Macro 1x.

So it would be a good sales.

 

[ahsanford]

What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?

Better what -- overall? Better value?

My guess is this will be a nice $250-300 lens that is smaller in diameter and weight to the 35 f/2 IS USM. Then 35mm prime shoppers in the EF-S universe will have three first party options:

Good: 35 f/2.8 M IS STM @ $299
Better: 35 f/2 IS USM @ $549
Best: 35 f/1.4L II @ $1649

That's a nice lineup.

But if the M is some nutty reverse-mounting macro, illuminated macro or some video-dedicated tool (integral light for vlogging?), it could be a standalone animal that wouldn't be compared alongside other lenses. Canon might prefer that to ask for more money.

- A

 

[TeT]

What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?

Better what -- overall? Better value?

My guess is this will be a nice $250-300 lens that is smaller in diameter and weight to the 35 f/2 IS USM. Then 35mm prime shoppers in the EF-S universe will have three first party options:

Good: 35 f/2.8 M IS STM @ $299
Better: 35 f/2 IS USM @ $549
Best: 35 f/1.4L II @ $1649

That's a nice lineup.

Thanks, that puts it in perspective and makes sense that it may take the Nifty Fifty slot for the 35mm's (but probably better than the nifty since 35MM is such a competitive focal length)

 

[Antono Refa]

What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?

Better what -- overall? Better value?

My guess is this will be a nice $250-300 lens that is smaller in diameter and weight to the 35 f/2 IS USM. Then 35mm prime shoppers in the EF-S universe will have three first party options:

Good: 35 f/2.8 M IS STM @ $299
Better: 35 f/2 IS USM @ $549
Best: 35 f/1.4L II @ $1649

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM costs $149. I don't think IS justifies doubling the lens' price.

 

[ahsanford]

Better what -- overall? Better value?

My guess is this will be a nice $250-300 lens that is smaller in diameter and weight to the 35 f/2 IS USM. Then 35mm prime shoppers in the EF-S universe will have three first party options:

Good: 35 f/2.8 M IS STM @ $299
Better: 35 f/2 IS USM @ $549
Best: 35 f/1.4L II @ $1649

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM costs $149. I don't think IS justifies doubling the lens' price.

SMH. The photography world would be a better place if people applied value to more things than just a lens' max aperture, what focusing speed it offers and if it has IS.

What if this lens offers features that a stripped down focus-by-wire pancake doesn't have? What if it had FTM mechanical focusing? A focus ring wider than a paper clip? A distance scale? A hood and hood attachment design you actually want to use? A common filter diameter instead of an odd one?

What if this new lens is indeed macro? What if this lens has some slick video-friendly functionality beyond just IS?

I'm completely speculating on the price, of course -- we don't know enough yet. But using a pancake to peg any new prime's price is like saying all standard primes should be f/1.8 and $125 because that's what the nifty fifty costs. :

- A

 

[photonius]

Another wacky idea (unlikely with a f2.8 lens): Microfocus adjust (in lens)

1) Use live view, focus
2) Press M button on lens
3) Use viewfinder phase detect AF. If there is an difference to live view, the lens will have moved by a few notches.
4) Press M again, the lens now records the difference in lens memory.
Now, when using PDAF, the lens knows how much to offset with respect to the signal from the camera.

Sort of like a Sigma dock, without the dock.