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

[scyrene]

I was trying to say that if you have a focal range constraint -- and I was using 600mm as an example, because this is the biggest lens I own -- there are times when you just can't get enough pixels out of a 20-30 megapixel full frame camera. Because sensor is 1.6x larger, and the pixel density is only a little bit larger, there will be times when you get a gorgeous photo where a bird is just 600 pixels tall, and that's not a usable photo no matter how good those 600 pixels are.

I understand the argument - it's been used for years. In extreme examples, I think the crop might be the best tool, but I don't think the 'crop advantage' as it's called is as often apparent as to make crop a good choice for this reason. Being lighter and cheaper is a much better reason

Although I was using eagles as examples, those are pretty easy to photograph using shorter focal lengths and FF cameras because they're such big birds. There are plenty of birds that are much smaller, and often shy, and I just can't get close enough.

I live in the west coast of Canada, where it's often rainy. But birding is a hobby, not a job, so I only go photographing birds on clear days. Mostly, this evolved simply because I like taking hikes in sunshine, not in rain I also don't enjoy trekking in mud.

I mostly photograph smaller birds - there are no eagles where I live! - so I know where you're coming from. But as I say, it is almost never possible to use base ISO, so the crop advantage, such as it is, is even less compelling for me here. I agree it is nicer to stay dry

I think ISO 600 photos on an 80D looks grainy, whereas ISO 600 photos from a 5D4 looks pretty good. I have never had the pleasure of using a 5DS, 5DSR, or 1D so I can't say with those. If you don't/can't shoot at low ISOs and you want pictures that are free of digital noise, I'd definitely recommend a full frame camera. If a bird is too far away to get a good picture because of resolution and focal range, c'est la vie -- be patient and pray it comes closer, sneak up if you can, or go and buy a ridiculously expensive longer lens or low aperture lens that you can throw a teleconverter on.

No image is without grain, or free of noise. Of course, we all have different thresholds, but I think there is a tendency amongst some photographers to consider *any* noise unacceptable. I actually add in a bit of artificial grain sometimes - it can help counteract posterisation in out of focus areas, for instance. It's worth pointing out that with Canon cameras it has been useful (though less so now with their most recent sensors) to shoot at a higher ISO and pull the exposure down - ETTR (exposing to the right). I used to think ISO 3200 was the highest I could go on my 5D3 and get usable images. But ETTR and in *some* circumstances ISO 12800 could look fine. It's worth a try if you've not experimented with the technique.

An exposure of 1/2500 at f/6.3 ISO 100 does happen. It occurs on a clear day, when the sun is behind you, and you're shooting a bird in flight. It's also the best way to capture the bird's plumage.

I don't agree with this last point. Plumage can look better in flat light; it's partly a matter of taste and style, but high-contrast birds can show more detail with lower contrast.

I've never said it's the only way to do it.

By the way, I initially responded because someone posted that people should just give up on APS-C -- that it and EFS are essentially a waste of time. I just fundamentally disagree. As someone who has used both, I've chosen to stay with APS-C for my birding, a conscious choice after wanting to buy a FF camera. On the flip side, I think APS-C and EFS lenses are a great way to get people into photography and ILCs as a hobby, while the investment required to make a decent go of FF is daunting to most.

I think we agree - there's a range of shooting styles, and it's great that there are different options (and useful to hear differing approaches). APS-C is definitely a good way to get into photography; it's certainly cheaper.

You guys need to get a room. You are so off topic there should be a meme for it.

Lol, I'm not sure how we got to this point! Although tbh I think these threads are most interesting when they derail a bit. It could be worse - we could be having the old 'Canon is doomed - no they're not, they're the market leader' debate!

 

[scyrene]

And let's face it, until this lens is announced, there's not much to do here but twiddle our thumbs.

 

[Talys]

I understand the argument - it's been used for years. In extreme examples, I think the crop might be the best tool, but I don't think the 'crop advantage' as it's called is as often apparent as to make crop a good choice for this reason. Being lighter and cheaper is a much better reason

Yes, price is definitely an issue. Mostly what it came down to was that when I played around with both and looked at pictures where 80D was 2000 pixels of subject reduced to 1,200 and 5D4 was 1,200 -- they were close enough that I couldn't subjectively tell which was better. Obviously, if one was 1,200, and the other was 720, the 720 would be too small to keep -- but to be fair, the 1,200 probably wasn't all that great either.

So for me, to spend $3000 to own a 5D4 was a combination of a bunch of money, and not really being sure how many more keepers I'd have.

The weight is a bit of an issue, sure. But my long-term plan is to put a 70-200L on a full frame camera, and a 150-600 on a crop. Either way, the lenses will be the part that tips the scale

The real justification for FF, for me, isn't so much low light (though of course, who doesn't want that), but the ability to shoot wider. For cost reasons, it will probably be a 6D2, rather than a 5D4. It will just be easier for me to justify for buying something that I don't really need, but would be neat to have.

It's worth pointing out that with Canon cameras it has been useful (though less so now with their most recent sensors) to shoot at a higher ISO and pull the exposure down - ETTR (exposing to the right). I used to think ISO 3200 was the highest I could go on my 5D3 and get usable images. But ETTR and in *some* circumstances ISO 12800 could look fine. It's worth a try if you've not experimented with the technique.

Definitely! ETTR is most certainly the way to go, and frankly, the most compelling reason to shoot RAW. For me, the other is that correcting CA is better and more brainless in RAW, and of all the lens errors, CA is the one I despise most.

Lol, I'm not sure how we got to this point! Although tbh I think these threads are most interesting when they derail a bit. It could be worse - we could be having the old 'Canon is doomed - no they're not, they're the market leader' debate!

...

And let's face it, until this lens is announced, there's not much to do here but twiddle our thumbs.

All that about being #1 in the ILC blah blah blah.. fake news. Doomed, I say, doomed!

Yeah, this is just shooting the breeze til more EFS 35mm news, I guess

Anyways, if you want to circle back around on-topic, I will possibly be interested in one. I keep waffling as to whether I am or not. Macro is very useful for photographing painted miniatures (models), with 100mm being ideal for ones that are about an inch and a half tall. As the models get larger, and you start looking at dioramas, wider lenses are necessary, and generally you have to use a prime if you want the best sharpness. To give you an idea, some of the lines painted with a brush are much finer than what a 0.05mm pen can produce, so any softness in the lens, essentially makes the photograph unusable.

Here's an example -- the original, which was recently printed to horizontally fill an A4 page in a magazine, is a full, edge-to-edge 6000x4000 that's perfectly crisp. I took it with a 50/STM, but for models larger than this, 35 would be great.

35mm macro at 2.8 would also probably allow me to keep do some neat stuff in in tables with miniature-sized battles and dioramas... depending on the final price in my area, maybe a toy that's cheap enough to get just to play with.

 

[neonlight]

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.

Yes- Latest Canon info says 80 million cameras and 120 million lenses have been manufactured. That makes an average of 1.5 lenses per body. Now where did I leave half a lens ...

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Yes- Latest Canon info says 80 million cameras and 120 million lenses have been manufactured. That makes an average of 1.5 lenses per body. Now where did I leave half a lens ...

 

[ecka]

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...

Because I cannot afford MF. There is a FF sweet spot for all the things I want my camera to do. And it is cheaper than crop, while not really much larger or heavier.
I'm saying that my EF28/1.8USM is equivalent to EF-S18/1.1USM, my EF40/2.8STM ~ EF-S25/1.8STM ($140 freaking pancake!), my EF50/1.8STM ~ EF-S30/1.1STM and my EF100/2USM ~ EF-S60/1.2USM, etc.

 

[daleg]

I'm sure that I'm probably the XXth poster to make this comment ...

But why the hell would I want a 35mm crop-body macro? with or without headlights?

does not compute. no way, no how.

IF I needed that specific perspective - cannot imagine why - I'm much more likely to mount Canon's 55mm compact macro (1:2) on a full frame body - with or without its life size converter - which does 1:1.

or Tamron's aps-c optimized 60/2, or the canon 100/2.8 IS macro, or the canon 180/3.5 macro + assorted legacy lenses for MF (at times better than the EF collection).

I have little doubt that Canon's newest and bestest will be one fine, little lens. In all seriousness, Canon doesn't generally produce poor lenses.

I just don't understand its purpose. I'm probably missing the point, but there it is.

 

[Loswr]

I'm sure that I'm probably the XXth poster to make this comment ...

But why the hell would I want a 35mm crop-body macro? with or without headlights?

does not compute. no way, no how.

IF I needed that specific perspective - cannot imagine why - I'm much more likely to mount Canon's 55mm compact macro (1:2) on a full frame body - with or without its life size converter - which does 1:1.

or Tamron's aps-c optimized 60/2, or the canon 100/2.8 IS macro, or the canon 180/3.5 macro + assorted legacy lenses for MF (at times better than the EF collection).

Well, think about your suggested alternatives for an EF-S lens intended for owners of APS-C cameras...the first one (which is the only bona fide alternative you suggest) requires a FF camera ($1200) and a lens that is no longer available for new retail purchase, at least in the US. The second set of options don't even remotely provide 'that specific perspective' and so they aren't really alternatives at all.

So maybe it computes a little better, now?

 

[andrei1989]

I'm sure that I'm probably the XXth poster to make this comment ...

But why the hell would I want a 35mm crop-body macro? with or without headlights?

does not compute. no way, no how.

IF I needed that specific perspective - cannot imagine why - I'm much more likely to mount Canon's 55mm compact macro (1:2) on a full frame body - with or without its life size converter - which does 1:1.

or Tamron's aps-c optimized 60/2, or the canon 100/2.8 IS macro, or the canon 180/3.5 macro + assorted legacy lenses for MF (at times better than the EF collection).

I have little doubt that Canon's newest and bestest will be one fine, little lens. In all seriousness, Canon doesn't generally produce poor lenses.

I just don't understand its purpose. I'm probably missing the point, but there it is.

but i want one, not only as a macro lens, but as a general purpose lens

i don't have a full frame body to mount the 50 compact macro

the other lenses you mentioned are completely different and so make your argument invalid

some time ago, i've played with a friend's nikon and 35 1.8 and wanted one for my canon, but at that time the 35 IS was too expensive for me..then i got the 40 which is a bit too long, then the 24 which i couldn't understand at all..i just couldn't work with that particular focal length..now i have the samyang 35 1.4 but i still want this 35 macro as it will probably be 1/4th of the samyang's length

if canon would have simply made a 35 2.8 that would be idiotic as it were too close to the 40 but a 35 macro brings something new to the line-up

edit: @neuro: you were a bit faster than me..

also, i've noticed many new users that only bash and bitch on canon and make idiotic comparisons - like the one above: why a 35 macro when you can have the 180 macro ???

 

[Loswr]

also, i've noticed many new users that only bash and bitch on canon and make idiotic comparisons - like the one above: why a 35 macro when you can have the 180 macro ???

Oh, c'mon...all you have to do is mount that 180mm macro on a large format camera with a 4x5" film back (or the new 5x5" digital back supposedly coming out this year) and you'll get the same framing as 35mm on APS-C. Easy peasy!

 

[slclick]

also, i've noticed many new users that only bash and bitch on canon and make idiotic comparisons - like the one above: why a 35 macro when you can have the 180 macro ???

Oh, c'mon...all you have to do is mount that 180mm macro on a large format camera with a 4x5" film back (or the new 5x5" digital back supposedly coming out this year) and you'll get the same framing as 35mm on APS-C. Easy peasy!

Yes but what about the DoF? Where the Tony Northrup video on this and what will Chelsea be wearing?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

But why the hell would I want a 35mm crop-body macro? with or without headlights?

does not compute. no way, no how.

IF I needed that specific perspective - cannot imagine why - I'm much more likely to mount Canon's 55mm compact macro (1:2) on a full frame body - with or without its life size converter - which does 1:1.

50 mm actually. The life-size converter is part extension tube, part teleconverter, and converts the 50/2.5 into a 70/3.5 (approximately, I don't have the exact figure). This is a rather clever trick, as it means 1:1 is achieved without having to be quite as close to the subject, but the very close perspective is lost.

or Tamron's aps-c optimized 60/2, or the canon 100/2.8 IS macro, or the canon 180/3.5 macro + assorted legacy lenses for MF (at times better than the EF collection).

I have little doubt that Canon's newest and bestest will be one fine, little lens. In all seriousness, Canon doesn't generally produce poor lenses.

I just don't understand its purpose. I'm probably missing the point, but there it is.

Yep, you are missing the point. There are two reasons to want a short focal length macro lens. One is to get the close perspective for creative reasons - yes, macro shooters do actually compose shots just like ordinary people. Two is for document copying, normally at much lower magnifications but a macro lens has just the right characteristics of a flat field and corner-to-corner sharpness. It's easiest to lay the document flat and shoot directly downwards, and a short working distance is more convenient than having to shoot from up a ladder.

It will now be possible to do these things without having to buy a discontinued lens on the used market, plus a difficult-to-find converter also on the used market, and a full frame body.

 

[Maximilian]

also, i've noticed many new users that only bash and bitch on canon and make idiotic comparisons - like the one above: why a 35 macro when you can have the 180 macro ???

Oh, c'mon...all you have to do is mount that 180mm macro on a large format camera with a 4x5" film back (or the new 5x5" digital back supposedly coming out this year) and you'll get the same framing as 35mm on APS-C. Easy peasy!

Yes but what about the DoF? Where the Tony Northrup video on this and what will Chelsea be wearing?

Before thinking about the DOF I would worry more about the image circle.
But I am not familiar with the optical formula of the 180 Macro and maybe it will cover the full 4x5"
But it might deliver a nice retro look with its vignetting and DOF can be achieved by focus stacking.
Pretty easy for a walk-around-shoot-out-of-the-hand-MF-Macro-rig
So Conclusion: EF-S 35 Macro is really useless and DOA, isn't it?