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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 22, 2017)

```
We’re told by a new source that the Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM is going to have a macro illumination feature like the <a href="https://bhpho.to/2nD7aho">EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM</a>. We can also safely assume that “M” means macro.</p>
<p>When we <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-s-35mm-f2-8-m-is-stm-coming-april-5-2017/">first confirmed this lens</a>, we weren’t 100% sure what the “M” meant in the lens description, but I think it’s safe to say this is legitimate and goes along with what a lot of people have been thinking.</p>
<p>The lens is still slated for an announcement on (or around) April 5, 2017.</p>
<p><em>Thanks for the tip…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## andrei1989 (Mar 22, 2017)

well now...this is getting interesting 
2 more weeks to go..


----------



## traveller (Mar 22, 2017)

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?


----------



## Azathoth (Mar 22, 2017)

traveller said:


> 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.



^ ^


----------



## slclick (Mar 22, 2017)

food


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 22, 2017)

Maybe for those that want fill light for those pesky backlit selfies?


----------



## infared (Mar 22, 2017)

My new 35mm f/1.4L II illuminates my sensor just wonderfully already, thanks! 8)


----------



## goldenhusky (Mar 22, 2017)

Here is how this is going
An EF-S lens with an exciting new feature that was never in any of the lens before
.
.
.
Rumors suggests it is fast APS-C wide angle
.
.
.
There is an additional M, that got to be the new exciting feature
.
.
.
Oh well it is useless 35mm and like many other said M stands for meh


----------



## picture-maker (Mar 22, 2017)

Well, if what you have just announced is correct. I am extremely disappointed and won't be buying one.

What an absolute waist of effort and money for Canon to come up with something as rubbish as that.

I find it difficult to believe! Are you sure someone isn't having you on?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2017)

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.....


----------



## kphoto99 (Mar 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Maybe it is 20% of a macro, or maybe Canon from now on call all 'Macro' lenses as 'M' lenses.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 22, 2017)

Still waiting for a Canon body that will do automatic macro 20 shot rack focusing- then we can discuss macro lenses.


----------



## hubie (Mar 22, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Still waiting for a Canon body that will do automatic macro 20 shot rack focusing- then we can discuss macro lenses.



Very special though... you cant even take a foto outside when it's windy.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2017)

traveller said:


> 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?



Food. The compact 1:2 standard FL macro is gold for food -- a 100mm (equiv) is too long to shoot food right at the restaurant table without it being a comical closeup. I could see this being a hit with the instagram travel/foodie types, food bloggers, recipe websites, etc. 

Also, the crafting / sell from home crowd (think Etsy, Ebay, etc.) would love something easy to shoot their products with.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I assume M is for the light so it may be an EF-S 35mm 2.8 Macro M?


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 22, 2017)

When I saw the EF-M macro-with-light lens, I went and bought it before I even owned an M series camera. There is significant demand for this. I take my M5 and that lens out on hikes as my lens for both macro and snaps among the hiking party. My real camera has the 100-400 on it, and I needn't worry about lens changes. 

It's a very nice system, but I have to say - as much as I like the M5 and am impressed by some novel features, like its focus point selection methods - I'd much rather have this capability on an EF or EF-S mount. The M system stutters sometimes in speed, which is jarring. If it weren't for that, I'm sure I'd keep it. Next generation maybe. 

I think I might sell my M camera and lenses and get this, presuming it's of similar quality. I'll stick it on the 7D2.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I agree. I used to use the 85L with an extension tube for food shots, but even that was too long sometimes. For all the sniping on these forums, this could be a popular lens with people wanting to do that sort of thing. 0.5x is more than enough, even if it's not really 'macro'.

I did (amongst others) call this. It is the most logical thing, and although someone pointed out that macros at 35mm are fairly distant, thus rendering lens-based illumination less useful, modern tiny LEDs such as those used in phones are pretty good, and it could still work for food photography at moderate distance, etc. No use for me, but cool enough.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 23, 2017)

The more we find out about this lens, the less exciting it becomes. Blah.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 23, 2017)

And whatever happened to "and not a specialty lens like a macro"?


----------



## slclick (Mar 23, 2017)

Perhaps the M designation is how Canon will mark all Macro lenses from now on.


----------



## Woody (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2017)

A built in ring light?


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 23, 2017)

sanj said:


> A built in ring light?


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


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Mar 23, 2017)

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


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 23, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > A built in ring light?
> ...



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 (Mar 23, 2017)

traveller said:


> 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)


----------



## svatsal (Mar 23, 2017)

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


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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

What else could a 2.8 prime be?


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 23, 2017)

scrup said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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


----------



## asl (Mar 23, 2017)

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


----------



## PeterT (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > Lol at CR, playing dumb, of course the M stood for macro.
> ...


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 



PeterT said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2017)

SUNDOG04 said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> SUNDOG04 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I will continue using my 100 macro for rattlesnakes, nothing shorter.
> ...


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


----------



## Nininini (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

JBSF said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > SUNDOG04 said:
> ...



+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 (Mar 23, 2017)

Nininini said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

PeterT said:


> ...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 (Mar 23, 2017)

SUNDOG04 said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> PeterT said:
> 
> 
> > ...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€).
> ...




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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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 (Mar 23, 2017)

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


----------



## ecka (Mar 23, 2017)

PeterT said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


That's correct. (See manual)


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Mar 24, 2017)

picture-maker said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



"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 (Mar 24, 2017)

traveller said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2017)

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 (Mar 24, 2017)

ecka said:


> PeterT said:
> 
> 
> > 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€).
> ...



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 (Mar 25, 2017)

ecka said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

Talys said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

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 (Mar 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

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 (Mar 25, 2017)

bholliman said:


> JBSF said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 25, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> "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 (Mar 25, 2017)

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 (Mar 25, 2017)

okaro said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > The crop bodies were first, FF came later.
> ...



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


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

neonlight said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

PeterT said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.



jolyonralph said:


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



Apart from the MP-E


----------



## scyrene (Mar 25, 2017)

Talys said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

Talys said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



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 (Mar 25, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



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 (Mar 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



Ha, you're right!


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




You'll find no argument from me that a 5D4 is a superior camera in most aspects. If I were only allowed to have one camera and price weren't an issue it would be a 5D4, because birds at 50-70+ feet are not the only things I photograph. 


Given the f6.3 constraint at 600mm of my lens, I find proper exposure at ISO 100 to be from 1/250-1600 shutter speeds on a bright, sunny day. Since I shoot stills with a tripod, the lower shutter speeds are ok. For birds in flight, the sun must be behind me anyways (otherwise, the bird comes out as a silhouette), so shutter speeds are well over 1/1000 -- sometimes as high as 1/3200. 

My biggest complaint with the Sigma (yes, I realize it isn't a 600L for IQ) is that at f6.3, the 80D autofocus is not great for capturing birds in flight. I must often AF at a shorter FL (to get 45 point cross at 5.6), then zoom back in, when the AF system has less work to do. If there were a better lens alternative that didn't require me to spend a gazillion dollars, I'd do it, but the photographs are infinitely better than my 70-200L, and at least comparable or better to a borrowed 100-400L at the range I want to photograph at.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2017)

Talys said:


> 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.



5DMk4 same dynamic range as 80D? That's not what I have seen from lab testing by Claff and DxOmark.


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2017)

and another segue


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



If you read my entire post instead of taking just one sentence out of it, the DXOMark numbers prove my point precisely. I said that in _*perfect lighting situations, where you can shoot at ISO 100*_ they have nearly identical performance. I also said that as ISO increased, the 5D4's definitely had an edge in image quality, if I could get close enough to the subject -- and that means better pictures of birds in flight if there's filtered light, because in such situations, to maintain high shutter speeds with crappy aperture, it's necessary to up the ISO to as high as 400. 

Yes, the 5D4 scores very slightly higher dynamic range at 100. But it's a very small number, and if you weigh it against the number of megapixels that you lose -- I'll take the megapixels, thank you, because I can improve dynamic range in post, whereas if I don't have enough pixels of the subject, the photo is worthless.

My point was never that an 80D is a better camera body than a 5D4. It was that the 80D is a different tool, and in certain, specific circumstances -- specifically, when lighting isn't an issue, and you're at the limit of your focal range of the crop area and you'd be discarding the rest of the frame, or more, anyhow -- it can yield a superior (or usable) photograph.

Edit: it's also worth mentioning that when using imperfect optics -- which is the case with many at long telephoto lengths, because not a lot of amateurs can afford professional primes -- APS-C means that you're only using the center 63% of the lens, which will be the part of the lens with the least problems. That means you're squeezing 24 megapixels out of the center 63% of glass, rather than a 28 megapixels out of 100% of the glass.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2017)

Talys said:


> Edit: it's also worth mentioning that when using imperfect optics -- which is the case with many at long telephoto lengths, because not a lot of amateurs can afford professional primes -- APS-C means that you're only using the center 63% of the lens, which will be the part of the lens with the least problems. That means you're squeezing 24 megapixels out of the center 63% of glass, rather than a 28 megapixels out of 100% of the glass.



If you are using the same telephoto lens on an APS-C camera and a full frame at the same distance, then your image of your bird (or whatever) will occupy the same physical space on the crop and FF sensors and be subject to exactly the same optical defects of the lens. There will be fewer pixels from the FF after you have cropped the image to the same size as APS-C of course, but the cropped image will be unaffected by the poorer edge effects of the lens as you have cropped out the edges.


----------



## PeterT (Mar 26, 2017)

scyrene said:


> PeterT said:
> 
> 
> > 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...
> ...



I never say it's a conspiracy.
It's called marketing. An ugly (in my opinion) but common kind of marketing which ignores the needs of a group of (potential) customers (even if there are enough of them to make the product profitable) because of the fear that some other group of existing customers could be better (=cheaper) served by that product.
What else can the ignored group do in order to get their needs fulfilled than being vocal?


----------



## scyrene (Mar 26, 2017)

PeterT said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > PeterT said:
> ...



I'm not sure that is the reason, but we don't have access to enough data - your assertion relies on the assumption that the group of people being poorly served by this policy (if it exists) is large enough to be worth Canon's while targeting with the products you desire. But there's no evidence of that. Be as vocal as you like, but don't assume that high volume (loudness) of complaints equals high volume (number) of dissatisfied customers.

They do what they think is best to maximise their profits. A lot of people seem personally affronted that this doesn't mean their personal needs and desires are met. I can only shrug my shoulders. No solution is perfect, unless perhaps it's bespoke. For most of us, compromise is just part of life.


----------



## Talys (Mar 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: it's also worth mentioning that when using imperfect optics -- which is the case with many at long telephoto lengths, because not a lot of amateurs can afford professional primes -- APS-C means that you're only using the center 63% of the lens, which will be the part of the lens with the least problems. That means you're squeezing 24 megapixels out of the center 63% of glass, rather than a 28 megapixels out of 100% of the glass.
> ...



You are absolutely correct. But in reality, that's not how it _works_. The same shot is often impossible from the same location, because on a FF, the subject would just be too small. It's actually the entire premise of what I've been trying to say; perhaps I've been inarticulate.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that you have a 300mm EF mount prime (no zoom). You mount that onto a crop sensor camera, and take a perfectly framed picture of your still subject at 50 yards; let's say, the subject takes 50% of the sensor height.

Now, you take the body off, and swap a full frame body, and take exactly the same picture. You're right: the light hitting the sensor occupies exactly the same sensor area. But the sensor area is 1.6x larger, meaning your subject, instead of being 50% of the sensor area, is only 31% of the sensor area. Your know that real pixel output would make this too small to use. It's not going to be perfectly framed anymore, because you wouldn't be happy with just taking a 62.5% crop area from the photo. So what do you do? Obviously, you move up closer to the subject. My earlier point was that with wildlife, often, getting closer to the subject is not an option, so you'd need a longer focal length piece of glass or a higher resolution FF sensor to accomplish the same number of pixels of subject.

If you compare most current generation full frame with current generation crop sensor cameras, the full frame cameras don't have 1.6x the number of megapixels (ie density). To fill your subject to the same number of pixels, you must move some distance closer, and which point, you are using more of the lens glass radius.

Of course, we can solve all this by simply using a FF camera with the same or greater sensor pixel density as the crop; but if you're comparing it against an 80D, that means going all the way to a 5DSR.

The best body for a lens would be the highest pixel density on the sensor that the glass supports built up to the size that the glass is designed for. Since life is full of compromises, you need to choose between pixel density and sensor size, with the exception of 5DSR.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 26, 2017)

Talys said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I believe users of, e.g. the fairly low resolution (by current standards) 1Dx series tend to argue that you can crop more (as a percentage of the image) with that camera than lesser devices (with smaller sensors and/or smaller pixels). This is intuitively true - a 15MP phone camera image shows much poorer quality (in terms of noise, DR, etc) when cropped than a 15MP FF DSLR image. It's not just the quantity of the pixels that counts. I'm sure there are others here who can put this better. But the old chestnut 'crop gives more reach' has never been that simple, but obviously especially not now we have APSC and FF cameras with the same pixel density (e.g. 7D2-5Ds).


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2017)

scyrene said:


> I believe users of, e.g. the fairly low resolution (by current standards) 1Dx series tend to argue that you can crop more (as a percentage of the image) with that camera than lesser devices (with smaller sensors and/or smaller pixels). This is intuitively true - a 15MP phone camera image shows much poorer quality (in terms of noise, DR, etc) when cropped than a 15MP FF DSLR image. It's not just the quantity of the pixels that counts. I'm sure there are others here who can put this better. But the old chestnut 'crop gives more reach' has never been that simple, but obviously especially not now we have APSC and FF cameras with the same pixel density (e.g. 7D2-5Ds).



I think that technically, this occurs as a result of noise, or a low signal to noise ratio. As sensors get smaller, they need more light to capture the same quality of image (because less light hits the sensor), and this becomes apparent especially in darker colors as you increase the ISO.

As you increase the ISO to 400 and 800, the differences between 5D4, 80D, and iPhone become vast. On the other hand -- I'm sure you've all seen it -- for family photos in the sun, the iPhone takes beautifully crisp photos. 

When lighting isn't perfect, often, the noise isn't apparent at 25% magnification, but on actual pixels you see unacceptable noise. In a lot more photos, that doesn't happen on a top-of-the-line FF like the 5D4, making the higher magnification crop possible.

This is why when I shoot on an 80D, I almost always use ISO 100, and generally never go higher than ISO 250. I find that any higher gives me non-ideal photos that I'm going to discard anyways, and this is the principle reason that I want a FF camera. Even at 200-250, I find that pixel-level images are only marginally acceptable and require work in post to make me happy.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 27, 2017)

Talys said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I believe users of, e.g. the fairly low resolution (by current standards) 1Dx series tend to argue that you can crop more (as a percentage of the image) with that camera than lesser devices (with smaller sensors and/or smaller pixels). This is intuitively true - a 15MP phone camera image shows much poorer quality (in terms of noise, DR, etc) when cropped than a 15MP FF DSLR image. It's not just the quantity of the pixels that counts. I'm sure there are others here who can put this better. But the old chestnut 'crop gives more reach' has never been that simple, but obviously especially not now we have APSC and FF cameras with the same pixel density (e.g. 7D2-5Ds).
> ...



Sure, but wasn't the argument that a crop camera is better in some circumstances than FF because you get more pixels on target? Maybe someone else was saying that. The difference may be greater at higher ISOs, but it's there at base ISO too, surely? The whole thing is rather muddy, anyhow.

But I'm sure the 80D is an excellent camera. I considered it too, when it came out, as it had such a high pixel density (along with the 750/760D). I went the other route, and got the 5Ds, which allows the best of both worlds, but is obviously more expensive and has lower fps than the 80D. As for ISO 100, once again all I can say is: lucky you! I have shot almost no bird photos at base ISO, and even ISO 400 is low by my standards, but I live in a not-very-sunny place, and often shoot at f/10. Everyone's different


----------



## AlanF (Mar 27, 2017)

+1
I too have never shot a bird photo at iso 100. As I invariably use iso 640 or higher, on FF, APS-C and 5DSr, all of my photos must be unacceptable to Talys. Using the sunny 16 rule for exposure, a fully illuminated bird on a bright sunny day at f/16 at iso 100 would require an exposure of 1/100s, or 1/400s at f/8. A top bird photographer like Ari Hazeghi uses exposures of 1/2500s or faster at f/8, which requires an iso of usually more than 800 (see eg http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/how-to-set-exposure-in-bird-photography/) and goes up to 3200 or so on FF in poorer light. His work must be unacceptable too.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> +1
> I too have never shot a bird photo at iso 100. As I invariably use iso 640 or higher, on FF, APS-C and 5DSr, all of my photos must be unacceptable to Talys. Using the sunny 16 rule for exposure, a fully illuminated bird on a bright sunny day at f/16 at iso 100 would require an exposure of 1/100s, or 1/400s at f/8. A top bird photographer like Ari Hazeghi uses exposures of 1/2500s or faster at f/8, which requires an iso of usually more than 800 (see eg http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/how-to-set-exposure-in-bird-photography/) and goes up to 3200 or so on FF in poorer light. His work must be unacceptable too.



In fairness to Talys, he said *on the 80D*. But even so, I would push a camera like that to 3200 with no qualms.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 27, 2017)

scyrene said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



Which is why I wrote I use 640 or more on APS-C and 5DSr. You can use high iso if you know how to remove noise with the right software and settings. If I use DPP or PS with bulk standard settings for noise then my 7DII and M5 are noisy at 640 iso, but there is no obtrusive noise when processed properly. If I was restricted to iso 100 I would have to give up bird photography. Base DR has never worried me because i am rarely down there.


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2017)

How does WB selection work when using an illuminated lens? What is the Kelvin for the in lens LEDs? 4500?


----------



## Talys (Mar 28, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Sure, but wasn't the argument that a crop camera is better in some circumstances than FF because you get more pixels on target? Maybe someone else was saying that. The difference may be greater at higher ISOs, but it's there at base ISO too, surely? The whole thing is rather muddy, anyhow.
> 
> But I'm sure the 80D is an excellent camera. I considered it too, when it came out, as it had such a high pixel density (along with the 750/760D). I went the other route, and got the 5Ds, which allows the best of both worlds, but is obviously more expensive and has lower fps than the 80D. As for ISO 100, once again all I can say is: lucky you! I have shot almost no bird photos at base ISO, and even ISO 400 is low by my standards, but I live in a not-very-sunny place, and often shoot at f/10. Everyone's different



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.

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.



AlanF said:


> +1
> I too have never shot a bird photo at iso 100. As I invariably use iso 640 or higher, on FF, APS-C and 5DSr, all of my photos must be unacceptable to Talys. Using the sunny 16 rule for exposure, a fully illuminated bird on a bright sunny day at f/16 at iso 100 would require an exposure of 1/100s, or 1/400s at f/8. A top bird photographer like Ari Hazeghi uses exposures of 1/2500s or faster at f/8, which requires an iso of usually more than 800 (see eg http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/how-to-set-exposure-in-bird-photography/) and goes up to 3200 or so on FF in poorer light. His work must be unacceptable too.



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.

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.

A perched bird, or one that's nesting does not require 1/2500. For those shots, I can usually take them at 1/500 f/6.3 ISO 100, or at worst, 1/250. Just use a tripod on big lens; handheld is fine on 70-200L or 70-300 if you have IS and are willing to shoot a few extras and cull ones that aren't quite in focus.

I understand a lot of people don't like using tripods; if that's the case, and you want to use a heavy lens, then, yeah, you need to raise the ISO so that you can raise the shutter speed. But hey, life is full of compromises, right? I'm just suggesting the one where you use a crop sensor, a tripod, low ISO, and long telephoto range as one solution to capture nice bird pictures at far distances; 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.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 28, 2017)

1/500 at f/6.3 at iso 100 on a bright sunny day fits nicely with the sunny 16 rule. I take photos as low as 1/250s when it is dark (at much higher isos), but that relies on the birds being absolutely still - I try to keep above 1/800s. Try DxO software and PRIME noise reduction - it works very well at removing grainy noise at iso 600 on APS-C.


----------



## slclick (Mar 28, 2017)

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


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 28, 2017)

slclick said:


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


Maybe they want to do bird photography with EF-S 35mm Macro?


----------



## slclick (Mar 28, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


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



Or take sensor pics!


----------



## scyrene (Mar 29, 2017)

Talys said:


> 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 



Talys said:


> 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 



Talys said:


> 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.



Talys said:


> 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.



Talys said:


> 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.



slclick said:


> 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 ******* - no they're not, they're the market leader' debate!


----------



## scyrene (Mar 29, 2017)

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


----------



## Talys (Mar 30, 2017)

scyrene said:


> 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.



scyrene said:


> 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.



scyrene said:


> 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 ******* - 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. *******, I say, *******! 

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 (Mar 30, 2017)

> 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 (Mar 30, 2017)

neonlight said:


> > 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 (Mar 31, 2017)

PeterT said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > PeterT said:
> ...



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 (Apr 5, 2017)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2017)

daleg said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 5, 2017)

daleg said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 ???
> ...




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


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 5, 2017)

daleg said:


> 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.



daleg said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2017)

slclick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > andrei1989 said:
> ...


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?


----------

