Canon Officially Announces the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

I just checked Amazon US, it's $600 on Amazon US and EURO 350 on Amazon France and Germany.

Holy moley, you guys are paying like twice what we pay in Europe for EF-S lenses.

Import taxes from Japan?

I haven't checked Amazon but B&H has it listed for $349.00USD. Not anywhere near the $600 you say Amazon shows it as - by the way, what market/region are you checking Amazon from? Just curious... No, I just checked, Amazon also has it listed at $349.00USD.

In Canada pricing is $459.00 CAD and the lens hood that you need to use filters is $49.99 so it will not be coming with one unfortunately but I'm not actually surprised by that.

 

[ahsanford]

In Canada pricing is $459.00 CAD and the lens hood that you need to use filters is $49.99 so it will not be coming with one unfortunately but I'm not actually surprised by that.

The hood comes comes with the lens for reasons Neuro posted earlier -- confirmed by TDP (my post above) and at B&H just now (see screenshot).

Are you saying Canada will be offering a different SKU for the lens that doesn't have the hood in the box? ???

- A

 

[SkynetTX]

Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one.
1. It's an STM lens therefore it does not support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with ring-type USM do.
2. Full-Time Manual means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than it's not Full-Time.
3. The MFD is only 13 cm and the MWD is only 3 cm. This might be good for flowers, food and other static subjects but it's extremly hard to get this close to beetles or spiders, not to mention butterflies, unless they are dead.
Therefore this lens is useless for me.
Instead of this I need – and I think it's not only me – the following lenses:
1. EF-S 250mm OR 300mm f/5.6 IS USM Macro (MFD must be between 0.75 and 1 meter) for beetles,
2. EF-S 10-18mm f/2.8 IS USM for landscapes,
3. EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8-4 IS USM for general purposes,
4. EF-S 55-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for wildlife.
All of these lenses must be equipped with ring-type USM motor since this is only one that really supports Full-Time Manual focusing.
Focus-by-wire technology should be used only in EF-V lenses created for videographers.

 

[Loswr]

In Canada pricing is $459.00 CAD and the lens hood that you need to use filters is $49.99 so it will not be coming with one unfortunately but I'm not actually surprised by that.

The hood comes comes with the lens for reasons Neuro posted earlier -- confirmed by TDP (my post above) and at B&H just now (see screenshot).

Are you saying Canada will be offering a different SKU for the lens that doesn't have the hood in the box? ???

No doubt he is simply making an (incorrect) assumption, based on the fact that the hood is also sold separately. The EF-M hood is also sold separately, because people can lose them. Hoods for L-series lenses are sold separately, too.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one.
1. It's an STM lens therefore it does not support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with ring-type USM do.
2. Full-Time Manual means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than it's not Full-Time.
3. The MFD is only 13 cm and the MWD is only 3 cm. This might be good for flowers, food and other static subjects but it's extremly hard to get this close to beetles or spiders, not to mention butterflies, unless they are dead.
Therefore this lens is useless for me.
Focus-by-wire technology should be used only in EF-V lenses created for videographers.

1 or 2) Those are your definitions and Canon disagrees: they call this new lens as being FTM focusing -- it's right in the announcement.

I get your point, however, but I call what you call FTM as 'FTM mechanical focusing'. It is different and clearly better for stills, yes.

3) This new lens is not for bugs. It's for the 'look at what I'm eating/doing/fixing/selling' social media world: food / eBay / Etsy / YouTube electronics teardown / DIY fix-it videos. If you want a bug macro lens, Canon (and others) sell a number of those already.

But I agree that STM > no focus motor at all (like the old squeaky nifty fifties prior to STM), but otherwise it's not for me. USM or bust.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

No doubt he is simply making an (incorrect) assumption, based on the fact that the hood is also sold separately. The EF-M hood is also sold separately, because people can lose them. Hoods for L-series lenses are sold separately, too.

Presumed the same. $49 CAD is salty, though. Even at $28 here in the US I find that quite expensive. It lacks the bayonet / press-button attachment / felted interior of traditional hoods and (seems to go for a fairly budget single piece of molded plastic. Unless they are turning the threads after molding or something, margins on a $28 MSRP have got to be through the roof.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one.
1. It's an STM lens therefore it does not support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with ring-type USM do.
2. Full-Time Manual means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than it's not Full-Time.

All of these lenses must be equipped with ring-type USM motor since this is only one that really supports Full-Time Manual focusing.

Well, you are welcome to define things however you want...inside of your own head. Since my EF 85mm f/1.2L II has ring-type USM but, according to your definition, does not have full-time manual focusing…I'm going to officially announce that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

 

[Nininini]

I never put lens hoods on my lenses. I try not to shoot at the sun. If you stay out of that 30 degree angle facing the sun, you don't really need a lens hood.

I've never had a shot where a lens hood was enough to remedy the light veiling you get. With or without a lens hood, it would have been a ruined shot.

I feel lens coatings help....but lens hoods...I don't feel like they help a lot.

Some people use them to protect their lenses, I have just never dropped a lens or banged it against stuff, so....hmm.

Wow, I am trying to imagine you walking around with 30 degrees in your head dismissing the opportunity to take certain shots doe to flare. I just don't like the look of a hoods vs no hoods fight on the forum. Helmets vs no helmets is bad enough, not too mention Campag vs Shimano on bike forums. Here we have filters vs no filters and crop vs FF. It was just that 30 degree thing...wow.

How hard is it to remember to not shoot in the direction of the sun? Shots against the sun are never going to be pleasing shots anyway, unless you like extreme light flaring and veiling.

Lenses used to have no coatings, then they got coatings that helped very little, now they have coatings that do a good job blocking out stray side-light. Lens hoods mattered a lot more in the past, where lenses flared like crazy, now they help very little. You can't fix light veiling, not with a lens hood not with a coating, coatings took care of most flaring.

From my experience, shots within a 30 degree angle of the sun, will always cause veiling, regardless of a lens hood or not, regardless of coatings.

I have never had a shot where I thought "if only I had used my lens hood this shot wouldn't have had veiling and would have come out great". Nope, if I'm shooting in direct light, a lens hood wouldn't have made the veiling any better, it might have improved contrast a little bit, but I would have still thrown away the shot anyway.

Some need those clips to attach instead of just screwing them on, some are heavy, many are made for full frame instead of APS-C viewing frustrum, some that are petal shape should have been ring shape due to the APS-C crop factor, some are made from garbage plastic, some from overly heavy metal, lens hoods are plain annoying.

Like the lens hoods on those pancake lenses, they are pointless, they don't help one iota, and they turn a beautiful lens into something extremely ugly.

The engineer who made this was laughing when he designed this. There is no possible way this thing helps against anything, the only thing it can possibly do is collect dirt.

 

[ahsanford]

Like the lens hoods on those pancake lenses, they are pointless, they don't help one iota, and they turn a beautiful lens into something extremely ugly.

Agree on the pancake hood -- the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM's hood is the one hood I don't use because I don't even own one.

But I do not give a whip about how it looks. I don't fetishize my rig like it's a sculpture -- it's an image capture device. I just use it.

People fawn over the Art and newer Tamron prime designs for their smooth surfaced looks and I just think "that's an opportunity lost to give me an engineered texture to better grip things."

- A

 

[Nininini]

I am a fan of UV filters, if I know I'm shooting in a dirty city with smog, or sand, since a large part what causes light veiling and contrast loss is particles on the lens. That stray light hitting particles and bouncing around inside the elements, is what causing the majority of the veiling / flaring / anomalies..in direct light. At least an UV filter does something more useful, keeping your lens clean, just toss your UV filter under the sink if it's dirty...don't try that with your lens. The filter itself might cause a puny amount of contrast loss if it's a cheap filter, but it beats getting your lens dirty.

 

[Nininini]

I haven't checked Amazon but B&H has it listed for $349.00USD. Not anywhere near the $600 you say Amazon shows it as - by the way, what market/region are you checking Amazon from? Just curious... No, I just checked, Amazon also has it listed at $349.00USD.

Actually, it's my fault, there are now 3 different canon 18-135mm EF-S lenses in production afaik.

The older IS one, the "vanilla" STM one, and the one with that micro USM motor, which some sites refer to as STM too.

That newer one with the micro USM is almost twice as expensive, even though the image quality is the same, it's all due to that AF motor, kinda silly there is such a price difference, considering the lens elements seem to be identical.

 

[Nininini]

It also doesn't help they all look similar, these 3 are all 18-135 EF-S, all currently actively sold by Amazon and all seem to be actively produced by Canon.

Good luck picking the right one new photographers =/

 

[ahsanford]

That newer one with the micro USM is almost twice as expensive, even though the image quality is the same, it's all due to that AF motor, kinda silly there is such a price difference, considering the lens elements seem to be identical.

Depending on what you shoot, faster focus = less missed shots and more keepers due to 'the moment has passed' or the subject moving too quickly for the lens to keep up with. STM is great, and you sure can can take a great sports / child running around / wildlife shot on STM, but there's no way your hit rate would be the same as with a modern USM lens. In my mind, if you only shoot stills you should always choose USM (if you can).

Also, as others have said, USM usually (the 85L II is a noted exception) gets you the classic mechanical focusing ring that you can operate with the camera off and FTM mechanical override of the AF. Also very nice. Most Sony GM lens owners probably wish they had this functionality over the FBW they have now.

So, yes, USM is worth paying for. And the $599 18-135 you are referring to has nano USM, not micro USM. As any EF 50mm f/1.4 USM owner will tell you, the two are not the same.

- A

 

[Talys]

There is a world of difference in the apparent build quality (how it feels) between the 18-135 STM and 18-135 (nano) USM. There's just no comparison; the nano USM is way nicer.

The difference in AF speed and noise is also worlds different. When 18-135 STM came out, the possibility of me buying it was zero, because other than the focal range, it really had nothing over other lenses that I already owned, and it looked, felt, and took pictures like a kit lens.

But the nano USM, I not only bought, but happily have it mounted in my glovebox camera (replacing 24-105L), because the autofocus is wickedly fast and quiet that it's surreal. It also makes great videos. Sure, the IQ at the top and bottom of the focal range is nothing to write home about, and you have to step it down to take nice pictures, but it's a good compromise between superzooms where almost all the pictures are iffy, and trinity lenses that can have either restrictive focal ranges, require swaps, or are just too big.

The 70-300 nano is also a lens that I really like, for similar reasons (but the AF on that is not as super fast). The build quality and look doesn't hurt it, for sure, and it's a fun lens for handheld shots that just gives a little more FL than 70-200.

If that's the direction of the new "consumer" grade lenses -- I'm happy with that. I don't want to spend L prices for every focal length, especially of those that I don't use much, or for primes with marginal use, because often, the consumer grade primes are plenty good enough for me. But I still enjoy nicely built gear. And also, sometimes, I need a second lens in a FL that I already have one of, but for a different camera bag, and can't justify buying ANOTHER super expensive lens.

 

[insanitybeard]

Agree with you, Neuro, but the general notion that Canon will only please the masses in crop and you need to go to EF to get specialized tools falls down pretty hard on the UWA end. Consider:

• A birder can fully live out his/her days in bliss in crop with a nice long EF lens, say a 100-400L II or possibly a big white prime.
• A portraiture person can do the same with a 50L or 85L on crop (rather than, say, an 85L or 135L on FF).
• A crop product/food/flora/insect person is drowning in macro options, both in EF-S and EF.

...while the UWA crop person is (relatively) SOL to step up to great glass. Their only 10mm-ish option is to 'step up' to an 11-24L (or go third party). I suppose that could work, but I have yet to see an 11-24 on a crop rig IRL in my travels.

I'm not advocating L lenses for crop or anything so dramatic, but a higher end UWA EF-S lens would sell quite well, I think. I still think it should be a zoom (and a 'Mk II' replacement for the EF-S 10-22 USM), but I understand why people might like a 10mm prime as well. Such an offering could address the one glaring gap the EF line can't really solve for crop shooters.

- A

Well summed up, my wish for an ultrawide compact prime is because I bought a 16-35 f4 IS as my walkaround lens for a crop body, I also own the EF-S 10-22 but although it's fairly small a compact prime would allow me to sell the 10-22 as it's range is mostly covered by the 16-35 except at the wide end. Then I could travel with the zoom on the camera and the prime taking up minimal space in a pouch for when 16mm isn't wide enough.

 

[Talys]

Well summed up, my wish for an ultrawide compact prime is because I bought a 16-35 f4 IS as my walkaround lens for a crop body, I also own the EF-S 10-22 but although it's fairly small a compact prime would allow me to sell the 10-22 as it's range is mostly covered by the 16-35 except at the wide end. Then I could travel with the zoom on the camera and the prime taking up minimal space in a pouch for when 16mm isn't wide enough.

Give the 10-18 EFS a try for the wide end. It's everything a good EFS zoom lens should be -- basic lens, light, cheap, and solid IQ. Cons: no USM ring, no weather seal, kit-lens feel.

IMO observably better IQ than the 10-22 at pretty much every FL and aperture (though admittedly, I only mostly use it at the wider end). Sharper, for sure.

 

[Chaitanya]

Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one.
1. It's an STM lens therefore it does not support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with ring-type USM do.
2. Full-Time Manual means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than it's not Full-Time.
3. The MFD is only 13 cm and the MWD is only 3 cm. This might be good for flowers, food and other static subjects but it's extremly hard to get this close to beetles or spiders, not to mention butterflies, unless they are dead.
Therefore this lens is useless for me.
Instead of this I need – and I think it's not only me – the following lenses:
1. EF-S 250mm OR 300mm f/5.6 IS USM Macro (MFD must be between 0.75 and 1 meter) for beetles,
2. EF-S 10-18mm f/2.8 IS USM for landscapes,
3. EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8-4 IS USM for general purposes,
4. EF-S 55-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for wildlife.
All of these lenses must be equipped with ring-type USM motor since this is only one that really supports Full-Time Manual focusing.
Focus-by-wire technology should be used only in EF-V lenses created for videographers.

As far as butterflies are concerned it all depends on your patience and skill on getting close to them. Sure 180mm macro makes it easy to photograph them but that doesnt mean using shorter focal length lenses are a handicap.
Here is an example of how close you can get to butterfly, I shot this photo(check attached photo) with a vivitar 28mm reversed which gives me similar working distance as the EF-S 35mm macro. Also as far as spiders are concerned they are the easiest subjects to get close to(depends on your comfort level), I regularly use that 28mm reversed to shoot spiders and I have to get close to them and I never had a single issue with that.

This is another photo I took using my friends Nikon 85mm Macro(for crop):
Gram Blue by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

100mm L:
Blue-Bordered Plane by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

 

[Talys]

All of these lenses must be equipped with ring-type USM motor since this is only one that really supports Full-Time Manual focusing.
Focus-by-wire technology should be used only in EF-V lenses created for videographers.

I think you're going to be disappointed with Canon. Maybe I'm wrong; I hope I am -- but I suspect that there won't be many -- if any -- new EF or EFS lens that aren't L that have mechanical focus.

Consider all of Canon's 2016-2017 lens releases:

1. EF-S 18-135 USM
2. EF 16-35L III USM <- L series, mechanical
3. EF 24-105L II USM <- L series, mechanical
4. EF 70-300 II USM
5. EF-S 18-55 STM (smaller 2017 version)
6. EF-S 35 STM

Of these lenses, the 16-35L III and 24-104L II are the only mechanical focus lenses. The other four are all focus by wire stepper motors. There aren't mechanical range windows on the top of any of the non-L's either (though the 70-300 has the digital one, that I suppose, pairs with an electronic focus). Also note that there have not been any mechanical focus EF-S lenses of late. I think the writing is on the wall.

In fact, you have to go pretty far back to find consumer-grade ring USM in EF or EFS. Maybe 35mm f/2 around 2012-2013? And green ring DO lenses don't count... they are not "consumer" lenses

 

[ahsanford]

In fact, you have to go pretty far back to find consumer-grade ring USM in EF or EFS. Maybe 35mm f/2 around 2012-2013? And green ring DO lenses don't count... they are not "consumer" lenses

You are correct. Presuming you're not counting DO lenses, I believe the last mechanical FTM / ring USM non-L lenses were the non-L EF 24/28/35 'IS refresh' lenses of 2012.

(This bodes terribly for my EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM, which is apparently (according to CR) going to be a straight EF 50 f/1.4 USM II -- but with Nano USM, which = focus by wire. :-[)

That sucks something fierce (if true), b/c those IS refresh lenses are awesome and we need more of them.

- A

 

[Dfunk99]

Canon bringing out this lens, when they Need to update their 50mm 1.4, also a 20mm 2.8 or faster & update their 28mm 1.8 to one with IS. Guess none of the above matter to them.