Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens
Does the "nifty-fifty" have IS? Not even the 1.2L or 1.4 Art does. Tamron offers a 45mm 1.8 VC that costs several hundred dollars/euros/pounds.
Has anybody complained that the 17-55 2.8 IS should not exist because it's (rounded off to common FLs) a 28-90-ish 4.5 IS equivalent? If Canon offer one of that zoom's crucial focal lengths, the 50-ish, as an optimized prime in a smaller, lighter and should be notably cheaper package, plus with that mysterious M thingy, then I say why not.
KristinnK said:
Does the "nifty-fifty" have IS? Not even the 1.2L or 1.4 Art does. Tamron offers a 45mm 1.8 VC that costs several hundred dollars/euros/pounds.
Has anybody complained that the 17-55 2.8 IS should not exist because it's (rounded off to common FLs) a 28-90-ish 4.5 IS equivalent? If Canon offer one of that zoom's crucial focal lengths, the 50-ish, as an optimized prime in a smaller, lighter and should be notably cheaper package, plus with that mysterious M thingy, then I say why not.
Upvote
0
Tom W said:
Yes, both the 24 and 40 pancakes are nice little bargains. I loved the 24mm mounted on a Rebel. Was a great little package with a very useful FL and I remember pre-ordering it. Of course I eventually sold all my EF-S cameras and had to let the 24mm go. But I agree, their prices are not terribly indicative of most Canon lenses.
Upvote
0
Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens
oh good grief.
a) you don't know what this lens is - could be a pancake.
c) it's only f4.5 in terms of dof control, otherwise, it's a f2.8 lens. get over it.
and then you ask for an even more esoteric astrolandscape lens? oh please.
KristinnK said:
oh good grief.
a) you don't know what this lens is - could be a pancake.
c) it's only f4.5 in terms of dof control, otherwise, it's a f2.8 lens. get over it.
and then you ask for an even more esoteric astrolandscape lens? oh please.
Upvote
0
Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens
That's irrelevant. A 56mm f4.5 is equally shitty if it's 0.5 mm long or 5 cm long.
This is not true. A 35mm f2.8 lens gathers the same amount of light (information) into a 1.6 crop sensor as a 56mm f4.5 lens gathers into a full-frame sensor (assuming the image circle is completely covers the sensor in both cases).
Esoteric means something that appeals to or interests few people. However in the thread about the rumored "wide angle" EF-S lens a lot of people were hoping for a real wide-angle (~16mm FF equivalent, i.e. ~10mm), wide aperture (i.e. f2.8 or wider) lens. In fact even though there are a few third party options (especially the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8) that shows that there is a demand for this type of lens, there is no native Canon lens that fills this need. The third party options also show this is not a difficult lens to make, even as a zoom!
rrcphoto said:
That's irrelevant. A 56mm f4.5 is equally shitty if it's 0.5 mm long or 5 cm long.
rrcphoto said:
This is not true. A 35mm f2.8 lens gathers the same amount of light (information) into a 1.6 crop sensor as a 56mm f4.5 lens gathers into a full-frame sensor (assuming the image circle is completely covers the sensor in both cases).
rrcphoto said:
Esoteric means something that appeals to or interests few people. However in the thread about the rumored "wide angle" EF-S lens a lot of people were hoping for a real wide-angle (~16mm FF equivalent, i.e. ~10mm), wide aperture (i.e. f2.8 or wider) lens. In fact even though there are a few third party options (especially the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8) that shows that there is a demand for this type of lens, there is no native Canon lens that fills this need. The third party options also show this is not a difficult lens to make, even as a zoom!
Upvote
0
wow, I have never seen so much bitching about a lens, and it makes no sense at all
This lens is likely going to be great.
Many APS-C users couldn't afford the 35mm f/2.0. Secondly, the 35mm f/2.0 is a very old lens that has many elements and outdated coating, causing issues with flaring and its IS isn't up to par with current lenses. Canon has learned a thing or two about coatings and IS since then. Thirdly, it's a full frame lens, I don't like paying for glass and weight I'm not going to use.
At f/2.8 with an APS-C image circle, this lens will remain light and affordable for APS-C users, the IS is just icing on the cake.
What is wrong with f/2.8? Not everyone wants a heavy expensive f/1.4 lens, most people just want a fast enough lens to prevent motion blur, not have a razor thin DoF.
People love those f/2.8 pancake lenses, f/2.8 is great for the average user, it's about 1-2 stops faster than the kit lens which means I can drop my ISO from 3200 to 800 in very dark environments, or raise my shutter speed. And this lens has IS, giving me another few stops for static subjects.
What is the complaining about the focal length about? It will be around a standard 50mm full frame equivalent, one of the most useful and most pleasing focal lengths out there.
For the people complaining they wanted a wide angle. The 10-18mm is NOT a bad lens, there are few lenses out there that have 0 distortion at 14mm, it's also a bargain lens at its price. I'm sure Canon will make a faster wide angle prime one day. Just hold your horses.
Stop the complaining, this lens could be awesome.
This lens is likely going to be great.
Many APS-C users couldn't afford the 35mm f/2.0. Secondly, the 35mm f/2.0 is a very old lens that has many elements and outdated coating, causing issues with flaring and its IS isn't up to par with current lenses. Canon has learned a thing or two about coatings and IS since then. Thirdly, it's a full frame lens, I don't like paying for glass and weight I'm not going to use.
At f/2.8 with an APS-C image circle, this lens will remain light and affordable for APS-C users, the IS is just icing on the cake.
What is wrong with f/2.8? Not everyone wants a heavy expensive f/1.4 lens, most people just want a fast enough lens to prevent motion blur, not have a razor thin DoF.
People love those f/2.8 pancake lenses, f/2.8 is great for the average user, it's about 1-2 stops faster than the kit lens which means I can drop my ISO from 3200 to 800 in very dark environments, or raise my shutter speed. And this lens has IS, giving me another few stops for static subjects.
What is the complaining about the focal length about? It will be around a standard 50mm full frame equivalent, one of the most useful and most pleasing focal lengths out there.
For the people complaining they wanted a wide angle. The 10-18mm is NOT a bad lens, there are few lenses out there that have 0 distortion at 14mm, it's also a bargain lens at its price. I'm sure Canon will make a faster wide angle prime one day. Just hold your horses.
Stop the complaining, this lens could be awesome.
Upvote
0
Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens
I think a lot of the reason there's so much resistance to this lens is twofold:
1. People are disappointed that the lens isn't their dream lens. 50/1.4 IS, 200-600/5.6, 24-70/2.8 IS, 17-55 II, 8-800/1.0 ... whatever.
2. There are a lot of people here who own or want a pro lens that's 3x heavier and more expensive, and just aren't excited about consumer quality EFS lens.
I will be the first to admit that I'm not really excited about a lot of the EFS lenses, but I buy a lot of them, because many are practical, cheap (or at least, excellent value), and pretty darn good. In a lot of cases, I can't justify a pro lens, but the consumer version, however unsexy, is plenty good enough -- especially when it comes to a prime. Or, a consumer lens is light and good enough to put on a second body.
benkam said:
I think a lot of the reason there's so much resistance to this lens is twofold:
1. People are disappointed that the lens isn't their dream lens. 50/1.4 IS, 200-600/5.6, 24-70/2.8 IS, 17-55 II, 8-800/1.0 ... whatever.
2. There are a lot of people here who own or want a pro lens that's 3x heavier and more expensive, and just aren't excited about consumer quality EFS lens.
I will be the first to admit that I'm not really excited about a lot of the EFS lenses, but I buy a lot of them, because many are practical, cheap (or at least, excellent value), and pretty darn good. In a lot of cases, I can't justify a pro lens, but the consumer version, however unsexy, is plenty good enough -- especially when it comes to a prime. Or, a consumer lens is light and good enough to put on a second body.
Upvote
0
Talys said:
True, it's funny how some people are up in arms over Canon offering this kind of lens that should've been in the EF-S line-up of primes all along.
Like I stated several pages ago in this thread, I can see this lens, on a crop body naturally, for somebody like me who likes these small (and inexpensive) primes as possibly something that could replace swapping between the 24 STM and 50 STM. And it'll be stabilized?! With that M thing, I'm guessing would be some kind of better than usual close-focusing ability? So instead of a niche 10mm prime for crop or whatever, that kind of capable lens that could possibly be the one on your camera for most of the time? Yes, please.
Sure, if Canon wants to bring along some of those niche lenses, they can go ahead, but I appreciate that a stabilized normal lens optimized for crop is coming, finally. Even FF users so far don't have a stabilized 50mm prime from Canon (Tamron's 45 VC comes closest) and when or if it does come, it'll likely cost quite a number of times more than this one.
I can see this lens bracketed by the 55-250 and 10-18 zooms for situations beyond this coming lens' abilities. And those who know those EF-S zooms are among the least expensive and best value lenses out there for any camera system, will get that I expect this lens to also be in those lenses' price range, so that's going to be a good thing.
Upvote
0
benkam said:
You're talking about the new FF 24mm lens (notice the S-less F & IS?), I'm talking about the crop pancake lens (notice the -S suffix?).
Upvote
0
People crying it's not f/1.4 are ridiculous. There is not a single EF-S f/1.4 lens out there. Do these people even know what camera they bought, you bought an APS-C Canon camera, it's targeted at non-professional photographers who are looking for a budget DSLR that is still better than their iPhone. We are not looking for $1000 lenses to put on $500 rebel cameras. Get real.
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
It's five years old, how outdated could it be? You'd expect a 4 stops IS, rather than 3?
Upvote
0
Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens
Why are they whining about an EF-S lens then, shouldn't they be looking at full frame lenses? Many of these reactions make 0 sense to me.
Who in their right mind thought Canon would release an f/1.4 EF-S lens? Crazy people? People who were high when writing comments? Wut? There are no f/1.4 EF-S lenses, that's not the target audience for EF-S. Do people just click on topics about EF-S lenses to argue about completely unrelated lenses?
EF-S are budget ($100-$400) APS-C lenses which use quiet STM motors and quiet and smooth IS so video users can use them. If you're looking for $1000 f/1.4 lenses, why are you even clicking this topic.
Talys said:
Why are they whining about an EF-S lens then, shouldn't they be looking at full frame lenses? Many of these reactions make 0 sense to me.
Who in their right mind thought Canon would release an f/1.4 EF-S lens? Crazy people? People who were high when writing comments? Wut? There are no f/1.4 EF-S lenses, that's not the target audience for EF-S. Do people just click on topics about EF-S lenses to argue about completely unrelated lenses?
EF-S are budget ($100-$400) APS-C lenses which use quiet STM motors and quiet and smooth IS so video users can use them. If you're looking for $1000 f/1.4 lenses, why are you even clicking this topic.
Upvote
0
scyrene said:
True enough, but they at least don't have a dual mount nomenclature to follow already. As I think about it, the logical name would be more "EF-M S" or somesuch, as the M mount, being shorter, would be the default, and something would be added to turn it into a standard EF-S.
Incidentally though, if the rumors of them working on a FF mirrorless are true, this could be a cheaper/ less-risky experiment into double mounts to see if it's viable to bridge to shorter-flange FF lenses.
Upvote
0
Antono Refa said:
Sure, of course I know the diff. Anybody who goes on a site about rumors on a particular camera and lens brand should.
Now, you did notice too with the earlier post that you yourself reacted to the 35mm lens comparisons that also included both this supposed new EF-S 35mm 2.8 IS (the "good) and the *EF* 35mm f2 IS (the "better"), right? You made the your reaction based on that comparison, didn't you? So I just followed through based on that.
My point here is Canon have always put a price premium on IS.
Another simple example here are the *EF* 28mm's: they're priced around the same but you have to choose between a fast 1.8 max aperture or stabilization in a slower 2.8 IS. If Canon did the very unlikely and ever offered a 1.8 IS of that lens, who knows what kind of price premium they'll attach to it. Another one, the EF 135mm f2L if that does come out with IS as rumored, it'll have some other enhancements but I'm expecting that to be a premium lens.
Upvote
0
Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens
It doesn't have to be that way. Sigma offers 18-35/1.8 for crop-models. And take a peek at Fujifilm and their admireable line-up in the APS-C department with awesome lenses, one being the 56/1.2. Their philosophy is that you can almost match the full frame concept as long has you have a good sensor and some of those beefy aperture lenses. And the bonus is much lighter equipment.
Canon don't just spit out rebels. The 7D Mark II is a good example of that. One of the most competent APS-C cameras ever made.
Nininini said:
It doesn't have to be that way. Sigma offers 18-35/1.8 for crop-models. And take a peek at Fujifilm and their admireable line-up in the APS-C department with awesome lenses, one being the 56/1.2. Their philosophy is that you can almost match the full frame concept as long has you have a good sensor and some of those beefy aperture lenses. And the bonus is much lighter equipment.
Canon don't just spit out rebels. The 7D Mark II is a good example of that. One of the most competent APS-C cameras ever made.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
