Upcoming Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Will Have Macro Illumination

[Woody]

For this lens to be popular, it needs to be very lightweight, ~ 100g.

The EF-M 28 mm f/3.5 macro lens will find its way into my travel bag for this reason.

Having said that, a lightweight EF-S 35 mm f/1.8 (like the Nikon 35 mm f/1.8 DX) will be more appealing for me.

 

[Chaitanya]

Being as I find that the 100mm macro often does not have enough working distance, why would I go for 35mm?

And at F2.8, it won't replace my Sigma 30F1.4.......

Not a lens that will find its way into my camera bag.....

Shorter focal length macros are good for doing product photography also for subjects like flowers and large snakes for which even 100mm macro is too long. there have been occasions in which I found 100mm Macro to be too long and had to resort to using Sigma 50mm macro. I am attaching an example when I thought shorter macro would have been useful(for that trip I had only packed Canon 100-400mm IS and 100mm L) and shooting that python I had to stand back nearly 15ft.


Now that's another lens I will impulsively purchase this year(other being Sigma 100-400 C). 35mm is perfect focal length for flower and indoor macro work. Also EF-S 60mm costs around 400$ so I expect this lens to cost either the same or a little less than that lens.
Edit: Forgot about the Venus 25mm macro, that might be another macro lens added to my bag if it is released in 2017.

 

[sanj]

A built in ring light?

 

[Chaitanya]

A built in ring light?

LED lights built in similar to EF-M 28mm Macro.

 

[Deleted member 378664]

This seems to be a pre announcement for April Fools Day. Even these kind of jokes get their own advance notice.

 

[mb66energy]

A built in ring light?

LED lights built in similar to EF-M 28mm Macro.

Hopefully lights with more flexibility and more light output ... a ring light with 8 or 12 segments individually switchable would be a great thing. But i guess you are right because a ring light with a lot of segments would be too expensive and you need some compact but usable controls.

 

[mb66energy]

I never quite understand the camera companies' obsession with short focal length macros, do that many people do copy stand work? I'm guessing that they are far cheaper to make than the longer (and more generally useful) macros like the excellent EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM. The only reason the macro illumination is needed is because you end up working in the lens' own shadow.

Anyone else prefer to have seen an EF-S 30mm f/1.8?

As a primary macro lens: You are right, 35mm on APS-C are not the most universal FL.

But for me a 35 aka 56mm equiv lens is useful for capturing whole scenes (I usually like 100-300mm range more for details). Macro is the extended capability to reproduce smaller objects in this scenario without changing the lens:
APS-C camera with wide angle/standard lens + FF with tele (e.g. need for higher ISO due to longer FL)

 

[Triceratops]

No mention of most awaited 200-600 mm. I guess Canon shelved the idea.

 

[Maximilian]

So the presumptions seem to come true.

Now let's see how small they have built it and how much IQ is in it.
I will not buy it - maybe I'm interested if its size is somewhere between the pancakes and the 50STM.
If it is bigger, it's "meh!" to me.

 

[bardamu]

I guess any kind of effort Canon makes towards the (criminally neglected) EF-S mount is cause for encouragement. Excluding the pancake, the last EF-S prime was released ?12 years ago?

Nevertheless, this was hardly the highest priority. I was hoping for 15mm f/2 or 22mm f/2. We could also use a weather sealed update to the 17-55, going slightly wider, maybe a 15-45mm IS. A slow 35mm macro with a light is still a bit like a "do anything" lens, which is nice, but it isn't really adding much in the way of diversity / specialisation for crop users.

The next lens I buy will be the Laowa 15mm I think.

 

[bardamu]

Maybe the M stands for "mole". Canon released spurious information in order to identify a suspected leaker. I heard they now have this guy in a small cell and periodically beat him senseless with rubber mallets.

 

[scrup]

Lol at CR, playing dumb, of course the M stood for macro.

What else could a 2.8 prime be?

 

[Sharlin]

Lol at CR, playing dumb, of course the M stood for macro.

What else could a 2.8 prime be?

You mean other than

EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM
EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 40mm f/2.8 STM

 

[Chaitanya]

A built in ring light?

LED lights built in similar to EF-M 28mm Macro.

Hopefully lights with more flexibility and more light output ... a ring light with 8 or 12 segments individually switchable would be a great thing. But i guess you are right because a ring light with a lot of segments would be too expensive and you need some compact but usable controls.

Right now(with regards to Ef-m lens), what canon has done is stuck a led torch to lens. Adding more features to that led light would mean adding cost and maybe issuing firmware updates as controlling those leds via a simple button on side of lens would be a headache and much easier to control through camera. And we all know canon is when it comes to issuing firmware upgrades to cameras. I am happy with current approach as long as it means broader compatibilty across digital slr range.

 

[SUNDOG04]

Well, I will continue using my 100 macro for rattlesnakes, nothing shorter.

 

[asl]

NI, not interested I think .... I was a little bit when it was talk of wide angle, but this is short tele.

 

[PeterT]

So the EF-S system will have two macro lenses, but still zero dedicated (in size, weight and price) wide angle or UWA primes. That's sad.

In another thread about this lens someone replied to me that I should remember that Canon has a long history of good marketing decisions where they were able to identify a vacant niche and fill it.

I know it. And I believe that they found a niche for this lens which will allow them selling enough lenses to make its production profitable.

But I just cannot believe that the niche for this lens is bigger than the niche for EF-S 22mm f/1.8 (cupcake sized, at most 300€ or with IS for at most 500€) or 12mm f/2 or 15mm f/2 or even a 35mm f/1.8 (for under 250€).
Therefore I still think that the reason not to release any of the mentioned lenses in last 12 years is the fear that then the EF-S could become "too useful" and could attract people that otherwise must buy FF bodies and lenses to fulfill their needs. And so they just keep disappoint people who do not want go FF for size or weight or price reasons.

 

[Maximilian]

Lol at CR, playing dumb, of course the M stood for macro.

What else could a 2.8 prime be?

You mean other than

EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM
EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 40mm f/2.8 STM

I would have gladly taken a sub-20mm f/2.8 STM EF-S (U)WA prime, if small (pancake, if possible) and priced reasonable enough

So the EF-S system will have two macro lenses, but still zero dedicated (in size, weight and price) wide angle or UWA primes. That's sad. ...

sadly +1

 

[Don Haines]

Well, I will continue using my 100 macro for rattlesnakes, nothing shorter.

With a 2X teleconverter..... you can use a 2X teleconverter on the 100L

 

[Maximilian]

Well, I will continue using my 100 macro for rattlesnakes, nothing shorter.

With a 2X teleconverter..... you can use a 2X teleconverter on the 100L

Canon Extender Manual say "No!" to all Macros except for the 180L Macro