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

[ecka]

Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2). You really cannot compensate for the lack of wide aperture.
There is very little difference between 40/2.8 and 35/2.8. I like using the 40 STM for macro / close-up with extension tubes. So, this new 35/2.8 M (supposedly Macro) could provide the luxury of not needing to deal with extension tubes. Unfortunately, crop only.
However, for me, "fast EF-S prime" is an oxymoron, because if you really want your camera to gather more light, then you should get a FF in the first place. Maybe there are no fast EF-S primes exactly because Canon thinks the same.

 

[Mr.Click]

But many people can't afford FF ,especially if you need a good AF too.

 

[ecka]

But many people can't afford FF ,especially if you need a good AF too.

That's a common misconception. Most equivalent FF lenses are not really any bigger or more expensive than crop, while being better and even cheaper. The trick is, you can buy a more expensive FF body, but you will save more money while paying less for each lens. There are some must-have EF-S lenses like 10-18 STM and 55-250 STM, which have no FF alternatives, because nobody makes f/5.6-9 FF lenses. But when it comes to F4 vs F2.8, or F2.8 vs F1.8, or F1.8 vs F1.2 ... FF always wins. I've got the EF 28/1.8 USM recently, for $250 used, which is equivalent to EF-S 18/1.2 USM. Imagine how much would it cost, if there was such a lens ...

 

[benkam]

This is all so simple really. If you don't like this currently rumored lens, then don't get it. Go get the Sigma 30 1.4 or Canon's own EF 35 f2 IS. Go get the big Sigma 18-35 non-OS or the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. Or have both the 24 STM and 50 STM. Or maybe you already have one or more of those things. Or don't get anything. Have at it.

There's no one solution here that fits everybody. So going back to the simplicity of it all, this lens will meet the need of some users who want something like Canon's 35 f2 IS but is expected to be smaller, lighter, cheaper, perhaps closer focusing, even if it's a stop slower and crop only. It won't meet others' needs but that doesn't mean this lens shouldn't exist. We'll see how it is when it's actually released but some of us do look forward to being presented with this choice.

 

[andrei1989]

But many people can't afford FF ,especially if you need a good AF too.

That's a common misconception. Most equivalent FF lenses are not really any bigger or more expensive than crop, while being better and even cheaper. The trick is, you can buy a more expensive FF body, but you will save more money while paying less for each lens. There are some must-have EF-S lenses like 10-18 STM and 55-250 STM, which have no FF alternatives, because nobody makes f/5.6-9 FF lenses. But when it comes to F4 vs F2.8, or F2.8 vs F1.8, or F1.8 vs F1.2 ... FF always wins. I've got the EF 28/1.8 USM recently, for $250 used, which is equivalent to EF-S 18/1.2 USM. Imagine how much would it cost, if there was such a lens ...

your logic...you lost it somewhere...
and again with the crop factor applied to PHYSICAL PROPERTIES of a lens...the amount of light traveling through a lens is not influenced by the size of the captor device

 

[Antono Refa]

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.

Tell that to Canon, reallly. The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM currently costs $549.

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?).

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

Now, you have noticed the numbers are wrong, which should have given you a clue my response (in italics) was to something else, say the line marked in bold.

 

[ecka]

But many people can't afford FF ,especially if you need a good AF too.

That's a common misconception. Most equivalent FF lenses are not really any bigger or more expensive than crop, while being better and even cheaper. The trick is, you can buy a more expensive FF body, but you will save more money while paying less for each lens. There are some must-have EF-S lenses like 10-18 STM and 55-250 STM, which have no FF alternatives, because nobody makes f/5.6-9 FF lenses. But when it comes to F4 vs F2.8, or F2.8 vs F1.8, or F1.8 vs F1.2 ... FF always wins. I've got the EF 28/1.8 USM recently, for $250 used, which is equivalent to EF-S 18/1.2 USM. Imagine how much would it cost, if there was such a lens ...

your logic...you lost it somewhere...
and again with the crop factor applied to PHYSICAL PROPERTIES of a lens...the amount of light traveling through a lens is not influenced by the size of the captor device

The amount of light traveling through the lens is not influenced by the sensor size and is mostly irrelevant. It is influenced by the size of the image circle the lens produces. Perhaps you are confusing the amount of light with light intensity, like most people do.
What matters is the amount of light gathered by the sensor, which is actually used to create an image. 2.5 times larger FF sensor gathers 2.5 times more light at the same intensity (f/t-number). The rest is just semantics and wishful thinking.

 

[ahsanford]

Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2). You really cannot compensate for the lack of wide aperture.

Fast + no IS vs. Slow + IS is all about what you prioritize and what you value -- one is not categorically better. Consider some scenarios where I compare an f/1.4 prime vs. the the same FL offered in an f/2.8 IS where we'll say you get four stops of image stabilization:

• Low light -- Concert shooting, events, etc.: Presumably your subject is moving. IS does you no favors there. The fast prime lets you keep the ISO down and is clearly the better call.
  
  
• Low light -- scenery/stationary things: I always use the church nave scenario (no flash, no tripod possible), but you could say the same of a late night walkabout, or indoor shot of a sleeping child where you can't crank the lights, use a flash or run for the tripod. In this case, you have a choice of f/1.4 at ISO 6400 or f/2.8 at ISO 25600 (without IS), but IS let's you bring that down to ISO 1600. Further, the fast prime must shoot wide open to get the ISO that low, and you may want latitude to stop down for composition reasons. The slow + IS lens is the better call.
  
  
• Video: unless you are either entirely shooting in candlelight or using something to stabilize the entire rig, I presume IS will do you a lot more good than the wider aperture. The slow + IS is the better call.
  
  
• Action, moving subjects, candids, etc: again, IS does you no favors if people are moving -- the fast prime is the right call.
  
  
• Hiking: slow + IS all day, principally for less weight to carry, but you actually can pull off some remarkably long handheld exposures for waterfalls and streams.
  
  
• Some folks only enjoy small DOF work, it justifies the FF purchase, it pops more, etc.: that lens picks itself.

I'm not taking anything away from the power of a large aperture with these comments. Large aperture lenses are great. But there are some times IS buys you functionality or 'virtual speed' for stationary items to let you capture other needs better.

- A

 

[scyrene]

Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2).

Of course, many of those other stabilising options are not possible in many real-world situations. Museums, churches, and other dark but static places rarely allow tripods; tripods are also awkward at parties and other functions (although usually the limiting factor there is subject movement). I think IS is useful at all focal lengths, but it is not a silver bullet of course; and wide aperture is great too, but only suitable itself in some situations (sometimes you want more depth of field).

 

[ecka]

Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2). You really cannot compensate for the lack of wide aperture.

Fast + no IS vs. Slow + IS is all about what you prioritize and what you value -- one is not categorically better. Consider some scenarios where I compare an f/1.4 prime vs. the the same FL offered in an f/2.8 IS where we'll say you get four stops of image stabilization:

• Low light -- Concert shooting, events, etc.: Presumably your subject is moving. IS does you no favors there. The fast prime lets you keep the ISO down and is clearly the better call.
  
  
• Low light -- scenery/stationary things: I always use the church nave scenario (no flash, no tripod possible), but you could say the same of a late night walkabout, or indoor shot of a sleeping child where you can't crank the lights, use a flash or run for the tripod. In this case, you have a choice of f/1.4 at ISO 6400 or f/2.8 at ISO 25600 (without IS), but IS let's you bring that down to ISO 1600. Further, the fast prime must shoot wide open to get the ISO that low, and you may want latitude to stop down for composition reasons. The slow + IS lens is the better call.
  
  
• Video: unless you are either entirely shooting in candlelight or using something to stabilize the entire rig, I presume IS will do you a lot more good than the wider aperture. The slow + IS is the better call.
  
  
• Action, moving subjects, candids, etc: again, IS does you no favors if people are moving -- the fast prime is the right call.
  
  
• Hiking: slow + IS all day, principally for less weight to carry, but you actually can pull off some remarkably long handheld exposures for waterfalls and streams.
  
  
• Some folks only enjoy small DOF work, it justifies the FF purchase, it pops more, etc.: that lens picks itself.

- A

What I meant is that you can compensate for the IS, but NOT for the aperture.
Yes, it's all about your priorities. Just do not make statements like "my priorities are more important than anyone's"
Tripods and flashes are not the only alternatives for IS.
Hand held video needs IS ... who's arguing?
"Hiking: slow + IS all day ..." - I'm doing fine with 'slow without IS'
FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.

 

[Ditboy]

35mm EF-S would be the equivalent of a 50, so I think it will be a macro. The 60 (96 equiv) is nice, but having a 50 macro is good too. I'm sure the majority of Canon sales are for the crop sensor, so why not throw them some exclusive bones? FYI, I have used the EF-S 60 macro with my full frame Canons by using an extension tube.

 

[ecka]

35mm EF-S would be the equivalent of a 50, so I think it will be a macro. The 60 (96 equiv) is nice, but having a 50 macro is good too. I'm sure the majority of Canon sales are for the crop sensor, so why not throw them some exclusive bones? FYI, I have used the EF-S 60 macro with my full frame Canons by using an extension tube.

Exactly. We need a new EF 60mm Macro . Preferably F2.

 

[slclick]

Food lens.

M is for Munch, Mmmmm, Manger (French), Me (ego), Menu etc etc. Cats and brick walls are out, sharing your pre chewed plate of grub is the #1 IG thing to do.

 

[Don Haines]

Quote removed by mod

A few thoughts:

1) Consider decaf.

2) At least where I'm from, the slur you just dropped is pretty offensive. Keep it up and someone less nice than I am will hit the 'Report to Moderator' button.

3) You are shouting to win an argument on the internet. I believe DPReview has a lovely forum for that if that's what you're into.

4) Can't stress the decaf enough. We're good people here. Shouting will do you no good.

- A

I was shooting the band last night..... No, not the famous "The Band", just a local one that has two accordionists and also banjos, and no, I used a camera and not a gun..... I was even drinking decaf coffee!

Point is, I was using one of those Sigma 30F1.4 lenses a crop camera..... For Canon to tempt me from a F1.4 lens to a F2.8 lens, this new lens is going to have to be particularly spectacular!

Did I mention I was drinking decaf?

 

[slclick]

Quote removed by mod

A few thoughts:

1) Consider decaf.

2) At least where I'm from, the slur you just dropped is pretty offensive. Keep it up and someone less nice than I am will hit the 'Report to Moderator' button.

3) You are shouting to win an argument on the internet. I believe DPReview has a lovely forum for that if that's what you're into.

4) Can't stress the decaf enough. We're good people here. Shouting will do you no good.

- A

I was shooting the band last night..... No, not the famous "The Band", just a local one that has two accordionists and also banjos, and no, I used a camera and not a gun..... I was even drinking decaf coffee!

Point is, I was using one of those Sigma 30F1.4 lenses a crop camera..... For Canon to tempt me from a F1.4 lens to a F2.8 lens, this new lens is going to have to be particularly spectacular!

Did I mention I was drinking decaf?

NO, WERE YOU DRINKING DECAF?

 

[Don Haines]

quote removed by mod

A few thoughts:

1) Consider decaf.

2) At least where I'm from, the slur you just dropped is pretty offensive. Keep it up and someone less nice than I am will hit the 'Report to Moderator' button.

3) You are shouting to win an argument on the internet. I believe DPReview has a lovely forum for that if that's what you're into.

4) Can't stress the decaf enough. We're good people here. Shouting will do you no good.

- A

I was shooting the band last night..... No, not the famous "The Band", just a local one that has two accordionists and also banjos, and no, I used a camera and not a gun..... I was even drinking decaf coffee!

Point is, I was using one of those Sigma 30F1.4 lenses a crop camera..... For Canon to tempt me from a F1.4 lens to a F2.8 lens, this new lens is going to have to be particularly spectacular!

Did I mention I was drinking decaf?

NO, WERE YOU DRINKING DECAF?

YES, I WAS DRINKING DECAF!

The light was poor so I was shooting ISO12800 at F1.4! Seriously though, it is amazing what you can get away with with a reasonably modern camera and a fast lens.......

 

[rrcphoto]

FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.

f2.8 isn't bad. f2.8 means you still get some control of dof .. and full frame allows more light because the sensor is bigger. it's not that f2.8 glass all of a sudden magically have the properties of f2.0 glass on crop cameras.

you shoot sunny 16 on a crop camera as you do on a full frame camera. this equivalence nonsense has nothing to do with that, the "more light" nonsense when it comes to a lens on different format is misplaced.

 

[privatebydesign]

FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.

f2.8 isn't bad. f2.8 means you still get some control of dof .. and full frame allows more light because the sensor is bigger. it's not that f2.8 glass all of a sudden magically have the properties of f2.0 glass on crop cameras.

you shoot sunny 16 on a crop camera as you do on a full frame camera. this equivalence nonsense has nothing to do with that, the "more light" nonsense when it comes to a lens on different format is misplaced.

Yes and if you use a sensor 2.56 the size of another one you capture 2.65 times the number of photons. Or to put it in photographic terms, for any given exposure (sunny 16 or anything else needed to get a shot) a ff camera will have 1.5 stops less noise than a crop camera, that is just a fact.

Equivalence is not "nonsense" it is very real and easily proven. Now we could have a very productive discussion on how often that 1.5 stops of noise is critical, or in simple terms, how often do we really need more IQ than modern crop cameras can provide but that really is another discussion.

As for the DOF argument, it is the difference between the 135 f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 at 135 both wide open shot on the same camera. Most times content will trump any dof differences and I never met anybody, and I have tried, who could reliably tell the difference between the two.

In my experience of printing many exhibition images for many different pro and amateur photographers, the dof differences between crop and ff cameras do not have a significant IQ impact, the noise differences often do.

 

[ecka]

FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.

f2.8 isn't bad. f2.8 means you still get some control of dof .. and full frame allows more light because the sensor is bigger. it's not that f2.8 glass all of a sudden magically have the properties of f2.0 glass on crop cameras.

you shoot sunny 16 on a crop camera as you do on a full frame camera. this equivalence nonsense has nothing to do with that, the "more light" nonsense when it comes to a lens on different format is misplaced.

Well, actually, sunny 16 is the real nonsense in digital photography, because you must be crazy to use f/16 on a bright day for no reason. I mean unless you are testing how much softer your lens is at f/16, then normally you should stay under f/11, at least for 35mm FL. The rule I'm using is sunny 100, the ISO100, and I balance the rest according to histogram or metering. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[Nininini]

f/16 is handy because you can focus a wide or standard focal length lens at about 3 metres in front of you and anything between 1 meter and 15 metres will be in focus for the rest of the day. I use hyperfocal when I want to photograph something in a relaxing manner and I just feel like taking some snapshots of stuff.

It only works well on bright enough days outside, where your shutter speed will be high enough to make it worth it.

But on bright days, sunny 16 rule and using hyperfocal focusing is incredibly fun, there is something satisfying about hitting the shutter and not having to wait for the camera to focus, yet having everything in a massive DoF in focus.

It's just fun, you can just point your camera at stuff without looking at the viewfinder or live view and get a sharp picture. Sure, the quality would have been better if you used f/8.0 or lower, avoiding diffraction and being able to lower ISO, but that's not the point. The point for me is about having fun, the pictures on bright days with f/16 are still great, and you no longer have to focus on anything, it's fun, try it.