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

[Nininini]

I wonder if this will become a standard feature on lenses. I mean....LED take up no space and cost very little to add to a lens.

And a round fill light works far better than an on-camera flash, a flash is farther from the subject and it's not a nice round pattern like a ring light.

And it's not just usefull for macro photography, ring lights are very popular

If you've ever been to a dentist and watched their cameras, they tend to have these ring lights on their lenses.

Now it's built into the lens:

 

[JBSF]

Apparently those who dismiss the idea of a short focal length for macro or closeup photography either don't do that type of photography or pay no attention to the work of those who do.

Piotr Naskrecki is an entomologist and superb photographer who uses lenses as short as 14mm for his work. You can explore all aspects of his work by going to his websites, but this link has entries about his equipment and technique:

https://thesmallermajority.com/category/equipment/

 

[bholliman]

Apparently those who dismiss the idea of a short focal length for macro or closeup photography either don't do that type of photography or pay no attention to the work of those who do.

Piotr Naskrecki is an entomologist and superb photographer who uses lenses as short as 14mm for his work. You can explore all aspects of his work by going to his websites, but this link has entries about his equipment and technique:

https://thesmallermajority.com/category/equipment/

Interesting reading, thanks for sharing this link. I have almost zero macro experience and always assumed longer was better for greater working distance, but Poitr makes a strong case for wide angle macro as well. Sounds like there is a need for macro lenses of a variety of focal lengths.

 

[neonlight]

OK I'd like to put some positive views. I find the 100 f/2.8L is too long on an APS-C to get a high magnification with small critters. Also for photocopying work sheets of paper need to be quite a distance away to capture on APS-C. So I'd be interested in a 35 macro because you could get higher mag at closer distances and a greater field of view when not needing high mag.
I hope the LED light is better implemented than on EF-M because it seemed to have a central dark region between the two sides under very close working distances.

 

[ahsanford]

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

+1. I believe the shortest prime -- skipping the T/S lenses -- that uses the Canon teleconverters (without a 'spacer' tube to give the projecting T/C element some room) is the 135L.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I wonder if this will become a standard feature on lenses. I mean....LED take up no space and cost very little to add to a lens.

And a round fill light works far better than an on-camera flash, a flash is farther from the subject and it's not a nice round pattern like a ring light.

And it's not just usefull for macro photography, ring lights are very popular

Doubt it.

1) The light generated by the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM is not particularly powerful. It might save your bacon and help you focus in the dark at a very close subject at a concert or event, but it's nowhere close to what a speedlite can do.

2) I think it's a nearly-dedicated macro application with that light. Have a look at the following photo pools taken with this lens, and I'd be stunned if you found a single 'mall changing room' sort of side catchlight pop in people's eyes with this:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/efm-28mm-macro/pool/

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0265297948/canon-ef-m-28mm-f3-5-macro-real-world-gallery

https://dustinabbott.net/2016/08/canon-ef-m-28mm-f3-5-macro-stm-review/
(Dustin actually gets one catchlight in a cat's eye, but it was quite tiny -- nothing like you gun for in portraiture.)

3) Only a handful of lenses (typically slow ones) have the real estate between the front element and the outer barrel for this kind of lighting. So this limits the number of lenses that can use it, or staple larger lenses (a 24-70, an 85 prime, etc.) will get even larger. That would not be so popular.

Best I can tell, some bright folks at Canon realized that casual macro shooters aren't (a) working in a studio with dedicated lighting and (b) are not going to pony up $$$ for either cheap aftermarket ring lights or expensive dedicated macro speedlites. So they came up with the EF-M 28mm idea that helps the budding macro aficionado (again, presuming this is for foodies) loosely replicate the ring lite / partial lighting effect those two pricier options would allow.

I don't dislike the tech. It's a cool idea. But for the power/size reasons I mentioned, this will not be coming to a great number of lenses -- there's a good chance this will be limited to compact macro lenses only.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Also, this is now the second time a similar lens is offered for EF-S and EF-M that is slightly different.

Pancakes: EF-M 22mm f/2 and EF-S 24mm f/2.8

Compact Macro: EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM and EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM

Is this to entice enthusiasts into getting both for their Rebels and EOS M's? Or is there potentially a technical reason why these lenses cannot be 'cloned'? (Perhaps going mirrorless allowed the EF-M pancake to get down to f/2 and still stay small, perhaps they opted for 35mm with this new EF-S lens as it needed a little more macro working distance due to the mirrorbox sticking the lens further out, etc.)

And I see the 15-45 EF-M standard zoom as a different animal -- enthusiasts really want wider than 18mm with a standard zoom, but a full-blown 15-85 would have been too big for the 'small' platform.

But, in general, I'm just curious why Canon is proliferating differently spec'd lenses that work with the same sensors / same crop. Isn't this just going to create a jillion little 'the grass is greener' sort of odd gaps between the two lens portfolios over time?

- A

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

...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.

I also can not believe that this 35mm macro will sell more than an EF-S 35mm F1.8
Why, Canon?

 

[Chaitanya]

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

I miss my 100mm L since I got 150mm Macro. Only time I prefer using longer macro lens is when I am photographing a Russell's viper else 100mm is perfect for most of the herps.

 

[Talys]

...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.

I also can not believe that this 35mm macro will sell more than an EF-S 35mm F1.8
Why, Canon?

If you look at it as 35mm macro rather than just 35mm, I suppose it makes a little more sense. Most people who want to shoot 35mm macro will often photograph subjects against a white background and at a smaller aperture anyways. Then again, I think most of them would also use a tripod, and turn IS off.

/shrug

An inexpensive 35mm macro would be interesting to me, but at this price, probably not. Macro illumination sounds like a cool feature, but I don't want to pay a big premium for it, since I have a whole room in my basement set up as a studio for this object size, and nearly every type of lighting and light modifier that I've wandered into. It is rare that I want my light source to come from the camera anyhow -- my preference being two light sources at camera left and right, with one higher up and angled down, and the other at the same plane as the subject, and sometimes, a muted or colored fill or spot light above (especially if it's a diorama).

 

[picture-maker]

The CR headline: New Canon EF-S Wide Angle Prime Announcement Coming April 5 led to everyone expecting the new lens to be wide angle.

My understanding is this.

If you look through the view finder of a full frame DSLR with a 50mm lens, and then take the camera away from your eye. What you see will look exactly the same. And Because of this the 50mm lens became known as a standard or normal lens because the lens made everything look normal size.

On an EOS, APS-C (what we refer to as crop sensor) camera if you fit a zoom lens set at 31mm and look through the view finder, and then take the camera away from your eye. What you see will look exactly the same. So a standard or normal lens for this type of camera would be 31mm.

A lens with a focal length higher than 31mm will enlarge the image acting like a telescope. So lenses with focal length higher than 31mm will be telephoto lenses.

A lens with a focal length lower than 31mm will reduce the image. This type of lens will gather more of the scene. So lenses with focal length lower than 31mm will be wide angle lenses.

Why then did the person "in the know” who originally leaked New Canon EF-S Wide Angle Prime Announcement Coming April 5 think a lens of 35mm was wide angle on an EOS, APS-C camera?

A lot of people posting comments here also seem to think 35mm on EOS, APS-C cameras is wide angle. When it’s magnifying the image and gathering less of the scene and because of this it's on the side of being telephoto.

My guess is because the EF-S 24mm f2.8 has been a tremendous success. All the reviews are outstanding. The same goes for the EF-M 22mm f2.0 lens. By definition, both lenses are wide angle.

A 22mm f2.0 lens would make an excellent companion to the rumoured SL2/EOS 200D.


(While we're on the subject, the crop factor for both Nikon and Sony is 1.5. So a standard or normal lens for these cameras will be 33mm.)

 

[jolyonralph]

Well, for a macro lens it's fairly wide angle

 

[ecka]

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.

That makes no sense. They could give you all the EF-S goodness, for the right price, but it wouldn't be even close to what FF tools can do. It's a business, not a lottery. Today there are lots of unreasonable APS-C worshipers and tomorrow they may evolve (I hope) to understand how wrong they were yesterday. I wouldn't bet on "crop is better than FF" BS. Why should Canon? Hundreds of millions of dollars would go down the toilet.
The only thing we have to fear is stupidity - mindless, crazy, capricious, epidemic, destructive, fatal stupidity.

 

[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

+1. I believe the shortest prime -- skipping the T/S lenses -- that uses the Canon teleconverters (without a 'spacer' tube to give the projecting T/C element some room) is the 135L.

- A

That's correct. (See manual)

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The CR headline: New Canon EF-S Wide Angle Prime Announcement Coming April 5 led to everyone expecting the new lens to be wide angle.

My understanding is this.

If you look through the view finder of a full frame DSLR with a 50mm lens, and then take the camera away from your eye. What you see will look exactly the same. And Because of this the 50mm lens became known as a standard or normal lens because the lens made everything look normal size.

On an EOS, APS-C (what we refer to as crop sensor) camera if you fit a zoom lens set at 31mm and look through the view finder, and then take the camera away from your eye. What you see will look exactly the same. So a standard or normal lens for this type of camera would be 31mm.

"Normal" has nothing to do with viewfinder magnification, it's the field of view at the sensor. For mainly historical reasons, as much to do with manufacturing convenience as anything else, 50 mm has been considered normal (or perhaps we should say "standard") on 35 mm full frame cameras for decades. You are quite right of course that crop factor has to be taken into account, and a corresponding standard lens on Canon's 1.6x crop bodies would be 31 mm. So you are also right to point out that 35 mm is not "wide angle" for an EF-S lens.

So far so good, but that doesn't translate into what you said about the image in the viewfinder. The size of the viewfinder image also depends on the viewfinder optic, which allows our eye to focus on the (traditionally) ground glass focusing screen, and in doing so it can magnify or reduce it. By convention, the apparent size of the image is measured using a 50 mm lens, and a typical figure for a film or full frame digital viewfinder would be around 0.70-0.75x. So the view through the viewfinder is not the same as when you take the camera away - it is less than 3/4 of the size.

When crop-sensor bodies came along, the industry had to decide how to adapt the convention. Bizarrely, some would say, they chose to continue using the 50 mm lens to make the measurement instead of an equivalent focal length. Because the focusing screen of a crop camera is smaller (it's always the same size as the sensor), more magnification is needed to make the viewfinder image large enough to use comfortably. However making it larger also makes it darker, and for this reason (as well as cost I suspect) the increase in magnification is not the full 60% extra which would be needed to match a full-frame viewfinder. A typical APS-C viewfinder magnification is about a third bigger at 0.95x, with the very best such as the 7D2 reaching 1.0x. So in this case when you take the camera away you do indeed see your subject at the same size - but this with a 50 mm lens, not a 31 mm lens.

So my 7d2's viewfinder has a magnification of 1.0x but my 5D4's is only 0.71x - which could trick the uninformed into thinking that the 7D2's viewfinder is bigger. It's not! When you adjust for crop factor you find that the apparent size of the frame is actually about 12% smaller, and it's also less bright.

Sorry for the long-winded reply!

 

[Lee Jay]

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?

I don't get it either. My most used focal length for macros is 200mm.

As for the "food" argument above, makes no sense to me. You don't need a macro to shoot something like a plate of food. Unless you're shooting one bean at a time, any 24 or 35mm lens will do fine. You only need a reproduction ratio on the order of 0.2.

The 30/1.8 makes no difference for me anymore, since I got the Sigma 18-35/1.8.

 

[slclick]

I never said it was a macro lens I just think that that focal length and with illumination it would be best suited for Canon getting into the whole photographing my food before I eat it and post it on IG thing. Yes, that ridiculous thing.

I'm really hoping everyone is wrong about this lens and it's something else entirely, something useful. Otherwise this is one of Canon's rare gaffs.

 

[PeterT]

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.

That makes no sense. They could give you all the EF-S goodness, for the right price, but it wouldn't be even close to what FF tools can do. It's a business, not a lottery. Today there are lots of unreasonable APS-C worshipers and tomorrow they may evolve (I hope) to understand how wrong they were yesterday. I wouldn't bet on "crop is better than FF" BS. Why should Canon? Hundreds of millions of dollars would go down the toilet.
The only thing we have to fear is stupidity - mindless, crazy, capricious, epidemic, destructive, fatal stupidity.

Why do you stop at an arbitrary sensor size? Why do you worship FF and not Medium Format or Large Format?
Do you remember that some 30 years ago "Full frame" was named "small format"? If FF is that much superior to APS-C then how much more superior must be a Large Format sensor over APS-C (and FF)?

Every sensor format (as any other engineering artifact) is a compromise among several contradicting requirements.

I understand that FF gives some advantages over APS-C. But it has for me some fatal disadvantages, too: price, size, weight. I do not earn money by taking photographs. So I cannot pay the amounts they want for FF bodies. And even if I could, the Rebel-sized DSLR is the biggest camera body I can imagine taking with me to vacations and using it for my style of photography. And for that style I really miss some two or three reasonably fast wide angle primes.

Do you want to say that those lenses are impossible to produce? Do you want to say that I am alone with my needs and nobody else would buy those lenses? Just look around in this discussion thread, you will see that I am not alone...

 

[Talys]

That makes no sense. They could give you all the EF-S goodness, for the right price, but it wouldn't be even close to what FF tools can do. It's a business, not a lottery. Today there are lots of unreasonable APS-C worshipers and tomorrow they may evolve (I hope) to understand how wrong they were yesterday. I wouldn't bet on "crop is better than FF" BS. Why should Canon? Hundreds of millions of dollars would go down the toilet.
The only thing we have to fear is stupidity - mindless, crazy, capricious, epidemic, destructive, fatal stupidity.

You either don't have a clue what you're talking about, or worse, you do, and just want to start a FF/Crop fight.

There are times when a top APS-C camera is superior to all but the highest-end Full Frame cameras for a specific purpose. Here's an actual example where, if I had a 5Dmk4 and an 80D, the 80D would be a superior tool:

The eagle is far away. I can't get closer to get the shot, and the longest lens I have is 600mm. Taking it on a 5D4 would give me a wider field of view, and a little more megamixels -- 6720x4480 -- but a lot of those pixels cover blue sky and trees that I don't care about. With the 80D, I get 6000x4000 -- but those pixels are in a smaller region, the area where my subject is.

Therefore, with an 80D, I have more choices: either I can have a 3500 pixel tall bird, or, I can zoom out to go wider. With a 5D4, the red area will only be 4200x2800, giving me about 2300 pixels (height) worth of eagle. I can't get a higher magnification because I don't have a greater focal length lens. If I were Doctor Strange, I could just fly closer and get a portrait-oriented, 6700 pixel tall bird, but sadly I am not.

In order to get more megapixels of my subject with Full Frame, I would have to get a 5DSR, and go 50 megapixels. In that case, I would get 8688x5792 total pixels using the same 600mm lens, and 5430x3620 in the crop area -- making my eagle photo superior (in megapixels).

But to accomplish that, I don't just need to go Full Frame, I need to buy a body that's four times more expensive. And for that, I would only get 25% more pixels for the area I'm interested in.

The big plus to Full Frame comes with landscapes, architecture, interior photographs, and that sort of thing. I want a 6DMk2, but I'll never use it for taking bird photos (I assume it's not going to be a 50Mp camera). I will use it for all those places where I physically can't move further back to shoot wider, because the room is too small, there's a street behind me, I'll fall off a cliff, or whatever. In that case, using the widest lens that I own, I'll get a better shot, with less distortion and capture more of my larger subject.

They're both useful tools. For the foreseeable future, ILC manufacturers will offer most of their FF cameras at lower megapixels than the crop multiplier ratio of the best APSC cameras -- I suspect because both marketing reasons and cost constraints. This means that they'll both have their place in the current paradigm.

Putting that all aside, APS-C prices go much, much lower at the entry-level end, and lens prices are a lot cheaper, and weigh a lot less. This makes them useful both for learning, getting people into the hobby, and for less dedicated enthusiasts and vacationers, who have other constraints and are happy to shoot great photos and videos with a xxxD with a 17-135 nano.

 

[privatebydesign]

That makes no sense. They could give you all the EF-S goodness, for the right price, but it wouldn't be even close to what FF tools can do. It's a business, not a lottery. Today there are lots of unreasonable APS-C worshipers and tomorrow they may evolve (I hope) to understand how wrong they were yesterday. I wouldn't bet on "crop is better than FF" BS. Why should Canon? Hundreds of millions of dollars would go down the toilet.
The only thing we have to fear is stupidity - mindless, crazy, capricious, epidemic, destructive, fatal stupidity.

You either don't have a clue what you're talking about, or worse, you do, and just want to start a FF/Crop fight.

There are times when a top APS-C camera is superior to all but the highest-end Full Frame cameras for a specific purpose. Here's an actual example where, if I had a 5Dmk4 and an 80D, the 80D would be a superior tool:

The eagle is far away. I can't get closer to get the shot, and the longest lens I have is 600mm. Taking it on a 5D4 would give me a wider field of view, and a little more megamixels -- 6720x4480 -- but a lot of those pixels cover blue sky and trees that I don't care about. With the 80D, I get 6000x4000 -- but those pixels are in a smaller region, the area where my subject is.

Therefore, with an 80D, I have more choices: either I can have a 3500 pixel tall bird, or, I can zoom out to go wider. With a 5D4, the red area will only be 4200x2800, giving me about 2300 pixels (height) worth of eagle. I can't get a higher magnification because I don't have a greater focal length lens. If I were Doctor Strange, I could just fly closer and get a portrait-oriented, 6700 pixel tall bird, but sadly I am not.

In order to get more megapixels of my subject with Full Frame, I would have to get a 5DSR, and go 50 megapixels. In that case, I would get 8688x5792 total pixels using the same 600mm lens, and 5430x3620 in the crop area -- making my eagle photo superior (in megapixels).

But to accomplish that, I don't just need to go Full Frame, I need to buy a body that's four times more expensive. And for that, I would only get 25% more pixels for the area I'm interested in.

The big plus to Full Frame comes with landscapes, architecture, interior photographs, and that sort of thing. I want a 6DMk2, but I'll never use it for taking bird photos (I assume it's not going to be a 50Mp camera). I will use it for all those places where I physically can't move further back to shoot wider, because the room is too small, there's a street behind me, I'll fall off a cliff, or whatever. In that case, using the widest lens that I own, I'll get a better shot, with less distortion and capture more of my larger subject.

They're both useful tools. For the foreseeable future, ILC manufacturers will offer most of their FF cameras at lower megapixels than the crop multiplier ratio of the best APSC cameras -- I suspect because both marketing reasons and cost constraints. This means that they'll both have their place in the current paradigm.

Putting that all aside, APS-C prices go much, much lower at the entry-level end, and lens prices are a lot cheaper, and weigh a lot less. This makes them useful both for learning, getting people into the hobby, and for less dedicated enthusiasts and vacationers, who have other constraints and are happy to shoot great photos and videos with a xxxD with a 17-135 nano.

Anybody that is still sprouting the 'megapixels on duck' fallacy has clearly never actually tested same generation crop and ff sensors against each other in focal length limited situations in anything but the most optimal of conditions.