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

[Talys]

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.

I have tested a 5D Mark IV (friend's) versus my own 80D, using a Sigma 150-600mm shooting eagles, to assess whether I wanted to buy a 5DMk4 this season. I took about 500 pictures from each n the same, sunny afternoon at the same reserve. All stills were on-tripod, and most in-flight were handheld. There's absolutely no question that you get more megapixels off the 80D.

YMMV -- Subjectively, I think the 80D is a better tool for this specific job, if what you want is more megapixels and you're unable to get closer to the subject. In ideal shots, where you're getting 3000+ pixels in one direction, it really doesn't matter. They're both spectacular. But when it's the difference between 2000 vs 1250 vertical pixels, it's the difference between a keeper and a throwaway. I'll bet you that if I posted 5 pictures and stripped the EXIF, you'd never be able to guess which was photographed with which camera.

Objectively, based on lab scoring (not mine), the 5DMk4 has slightly more color depth and the same dynamic range as the 80D, and much better low light (higher ISO) performance. But, if you're only shooting ISO 100 in bright sunlight, the latter doesn't matter. If you drop it down a notch and compare 6D and 80D, the 80D has superior dynamic range; who knows what the 6DII will bring.

The bigger sensor/higher ISO did prove to be a winner, when the 5DMk4 won out marginally for birds in flight when it was NOT perfectly sunny. In this situation, it was necessary to increase the ISO to get higher shutter speeds and also to shoot handheld. The problem? I usually didn't have enough focal length, and I probably threw away 200 in-flight pictures because the birds were just too small, sharp and beautiful though they were at ISO 300.

But at the end of the day, these are just numbers on a scale. The 80D is a very fine camera, takes wonderful shots of birds, and after exhaustively comparing both, and wanting to buy a new camera I could find no reason to.

I will almost certainly buy the 6DII. Will I use it for birding? I'll try it, and compare both with a critical eye. If the results are better, I'll use it. If not, I'll be happy to tug it along to shoot the trees that are filled with my favorite birds and sunsets, landscapes, and everything else, and shoot my eagles and owls with my 80D.

Anyways, TLDR, try to shoot some small birds from far away with a FF, and when they come out with too few pixels to keep, figure out whether you want to buy a 5DRS, spend an insane amount of money for a ginormous lens, or just use an 80D.


Sorry and TY for reading the long rambling Here is a photo for making it to the end - taken that described afternoon, using an 80D @ Sigma 600mm: http://www.versadyne.com/talys/img_5039C.jpg

Now, I will shut up and go organize my gear for my birding trip tomorrow ;D

 

[privatebydesign]

Wooooooosh.

That was the sound of my point rushing past.

P.S. If that was the best shot from the day, a beautiful sunny day with the best of light angles , I'd junk the Sigma, nothing is sharp.

 

[Talys]

Wooooooosh.

That was the sound of my point rushing past.

P.S. If that was the best shot from the day, a beautiful sunny day with the best of light angles , I'd junk the Sigma, nothing is sharp.

It's one of a hundred pictures I kept from that day that I picked at random -- frankly, I can't really tell from my smartphone, where I'm posting this. I'm sure it's neither the most, nor least sharp, but it's a picture that I was happy to take and happy to keep.

If you're willing to spend five figures to buy a super duper prime to shoot razor sharp bird that are far away, that's awesome. For the rest of us mortals who just like exploring the city and shooting birds for fun, the Sigma 150-600 is a pretty nice toy. For me to spend that kind of money, there would have to be some professional use for the lens; otherwise, a couple thousand bucks is the absolute maximum I'd spend on a piece of glass for occasional weekend fun.

Anyways, you're entitled to think poorly of APS-C; just like I'll choose to support (purchase) both the 80D successor and 6D successor.

Peace, man.

 

[jolyonralph]

I thought it might be useful to put together a table of APS-C equivalent crop size megapixels for full frame Canon cameras.

http://www.everyothershot.com/pixel-pitch-canon-dslrs/

TL;DR : don't use anything except a 5DS(R) if you want to crop an APS-C size image out of a FF image.

 

[SkynetTX]

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.

Interesting reading, that's right. But there are no macro photos. Macro means 1:1 or higher magnification about small subjects, usually flowers, beetles and ohter arthropods. The photos on the site are referred as "close-up". To be more precise: if you take a photo about a 3 mm long spider and it appears on the picture as 1 mm long thing and the other parts of the picture are the surroundings, it's close-up. If the spider appears to be 6 mm long, it's macro.

 

[okaro]

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
...

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

The flange focal distances are entirely different 18 mm vs. 44 mm. This has a fundamental effect on lenses with short focal lengths. In the latter though it seems more lie aa choice between focal length and aperture. The EF-M 15-45 mm covers same range as the common 34-70 mm on FF though size was the main reason.

 

[jolyonralph]

Macro means 1:1 or higher magnification about small subjects, usually flowers, beetles and ohter arthropods. The photos on the site are referred as "close-up". To be more precise: if you take a photo about a 3 mm long spider and it appears on the picture as 1 mm long thing and the other parts of the picture are the surroundings, it's close-up. If the spider appears to be 6 mm long, it's macro.

Well, with that definition it depends entirely on the size of the image. If I view that image on a very large monitor, then it's a macro photo.

Traditionally you need 1:1 magnification to classify as a Macro Lens which means the size of the insect (or whatever) as it appears on the sensor of the camera is at least the same as the size of the insect in real life.

But a macro *photo* can be done with almost any lens. I can take a photo of an ant with a sharp, normal lens on my 5DSR and crop into it so that I have a *macro photo* regardless of whether it's a macro lens or not. This wouldn't make that lens a macro lens. But it does make my photo a macro photo.

And conversely, not every photo taken with a macro lens is a macro photo!

Jolyon

 

[okaro]

"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.

The exact definition of what is normal is a matter of convention. I still photography it typically has been the size of the film from corner to corner i.e. 43 mm on 35 mm film. However as you said for historic reasons 50 mm (or in some cases 45-55 mm) has been defined as such. On movie lenses it is longer as the relative viewing distance is longer so 50 mm is normal also on movies.

There is a formula for the normal lens: sensor size * viewing distance / image size. That would in small prints give even 70 mm as normal. In the end normal lens is like food with proper amount of salt. We can say that it exists but its exact definition is harder.

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.

The crop bodies were first, FF came later.

 

[okaro]

There seems to be a gap between the commenters and the target group of the lens. I am not surprised. Typical users of IL-cameras do not carry bags of lenses. On the average less than one additional lens is sold for each body. An average user wants a versatile lens. He wants that the lens has more uses and ideally that he would not have to carry more than it. For that reason the shorter focal length is better. A typical user of such a lens is also not at all interested in measuring the image sizes on a sensor. For him macro means close up photography. The lens could support to 1:1 but that is not what the user typically uses it for. In anyway the traditional definition is stupid. I am a believer that it is the end result that counts. It would be stupid if you showed two almost identical photos and only one of them would be a macro photo as the sensor size was larger enough in that.

Also Canon has a clear strategy: if you want fast good quality wide angle primes, then go FF. For crop users they provide zooms at reasonable quality and price.

 

[jolyonralph]

The crop bodies were first, FF came later.

Oh no they didn't! All 35mm film EOS cameras, with the exception of the EOS IX series that took APS film are by definition full frame. That's what the lenses were designed for.

Cropped digital bodies came much much later.

 

[slclick]

The crop bodies were first, FF came later.

Oh no they didn't! All 35mm film EOS cameras, with the exception of the EOS IX series that took APS film are by definition full frame. That's what the lenses were designed for.

Cropped digital bodies came much much later.

Remember, some people only have lived in the digital age and act as if all things photographic prior are irrelevant.

 

[Talys]

Interesting reading, that's right. But there are no macro photos. Macro means 1:1 or higher magnification about small subjects, usually flowers, beetles and ohter arthropods. The photos on the site are referred as "close-up". To be more precise: if you take a photo about a 3 mm long spider and it appears on the picture as 1 mm long thing and the other parts of the picture are the surroundings, it's close-up. If the spider appears to be 6 mm long, it's macro.

I don't believe that this is accurate. Macro photography, as I understand it, means close-up photography where the reproduction ratio is greater than 1:1 -- without any consideration of the background, if there is one.

For example, I frequently photograph painted 25mm scale miniatures (so anywhere down to about an inch tall) against a white background using a 100mm macro up close; the subjects that are from one to a few inches tall become 5000+ pixels, and are reproduced full-page in magazines to exhibit the detail in the painting.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I don't understand what you mean. The 100L is a true 1:1 macro lens at closest focus, whether it's on FF or APS-C. Can you please explain?

 

[scyrene]

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...

Well the most sensible response is that Canon has assessed the market and decided it's not worth their while to produce the lenses you ask for. Just because a few people on forums are vocal on an issue, doesn't mean that represents a large enough constituency in the real world to make something profitable. Some people respond by claiming there must be a conspiracy, but that's as ridiculous as any other conspiracy theory...

 

[scyrene]

Macro means 1:1 or higher magnification about small subjects, usually flowers, beetles and ohter arthropods. The photos on the site are referred as "close-up". To be more precise: if you take a photo about a 3 mm long spider and it appears on the picture as 1 mm long thing and the other parts of the picture are the surroundings, it's close-up. If the spider appears to be 6 mm long, it's macro.

Well, with that definition it depends entirely on the size of the image. If I view that image on a very large monitor, then it's a macro photo.

Traditionally you need 1:1 magnification to classify as a Macro Lens which means the size of the insect (or whatever) as it appears on the sensor of the camera is at least the same as the size of the insect in real life.

But a macro *photo* can be done with almost any lens. I can take a photo of an ant with a sharp, normal lens on my 5DSR and crop into it so that I have a *macro photo* regardless of whether it's a macro lens or not. This wouldn't make that lens a macro lens. But it does make my photo a macro photo.

Some of this I can agree with. There is a 'textbook definition' of macro, if you will, which is the 1:1 reproduction of a subject in focus at the sensor - so if a FF sensor is used, a roughly 36mm long subject will fill the whole width of the image without cropping. However, many photographers and even manufacturers refer to lenses and camera/lens modes as 'macro' for 0.5x and even less. That's common usage, and it's nitpicking to say it's not technically correct (after all, who defines these terms if not the people making and using cameras?). I tend to be a stickler and say 'near macro' for closeups of flowers and

But as for 'any image cropped or viewed large enough is a macro', I've never heard that stated anywhere before, and it sounds awfully fishy to me. It's a bit nonsensical - any image cropped enough would become a macro, which rather diltues the term to meaninglessness. To put it another way, if you zoom in enough, you'd call any image a macro once subjects were life-size on your screen, however pixellated. You're free to use the term however you want, of course, but think about what you're implying: every billboard image of a person's face is automatically a super macro image. That's absurd.

And conversely, not every photo taken with a macro lens is a macro photo!

Apart from the MP-E

 

[scyrene]

I don't believe that this is accurate. Macro photography, as I understand it, means close-up photography where the reproduction ratio is greater than 1:1 -- without any consideration of the background, if there is one.

To be precise: only the plane of focus needs to be 1:1 magnification. A wide angle lens can be a true macro. A subject might be reproduced 1:1 at the sensor with a wide angle out of focus background - the latter doesn't make any difference to whether the shot is a macro in this definition, only the magnification of the subject (the insect, say). Of course in practice, it's often impossible to focus a very wide angle lens at 1:1, even with the use of extension tubes, as the plane of focus lies behind the front of the lens itself (which can be frustrating!). Obviously a purpose-designed lens wouldn't have this problem, but I'm not aware of any ultrawide angle true macro lenses (though if anyone knows of any, do please interject!).

 

[scyrene]

Objectively, based on lab scoring (not mine), the 5DMk4 has slightly more color depth and the same dynamic range as the 80D, and much better low light (higher ISO) performance. But, if you're only shooting ISO 100 in bright sunlight, the latter doesn't matter. If you drop it down a notch and compare 6D and 80D, the 80D has superior dynamic range; who knows what the 6DII will bring.

If you're able to do all your bird photography at ISO 100, you must live somewhere very bright! But anyhow, I'm glad you're enjoying your kit; however, the argument 'more pixels on bird with crop' is not as cut and dried as you suggest, or else everyone would be using fixed lens superzooms for bird photography. I've no doubt the 80D is a fine camera for this type of work if budget and weight are limiting factors. The 5D4 is nonetheless doubtless superior in most technical aspects.

 

[scyrene]

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)

Yes, this is not possible without e.g. a 12mm extension tube, while the extender just about fits into the back of the 100L, it won't turn and lock in place.

 

[jolyonralph]

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)

Yes, this is not possible without e.g. a 12mm extension tube, while the extender just about fits into the back of the 100L, it won't turn and lock in place.

Well. I hate to be pedantic. Oh no, wait, I love it! But the poster said using a 2x Teleconverter, not specifically a Canon 2x extender. There are plenty of third party teleconverters for EF lenses that will work fine with the 100L macro.

 

[scyrene]

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)

Yes, this is not possible without e.g. a 12mm extension tube, while the extender just about fits into the back of the 100L, it won't turn and lock in place.

Well. I hate to be pedantic. Oh no, wait, I love it! But the poster said using a 2x Teleconverter, not specifically a Canon 2x extender. There are plenty of third party teleconverters for EF lenses that will work fine with the 100L macro.

Ha, you're right!