# Canon Officially Announces the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 6, 2017)

```
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM $349: <a href="https://bhpho.to/2ndtUoR">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2nGb3y9">Amazon</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-s-35mm-2-8-macro-is-stm.html?acc=3">MPEX</a></strong></p>
<p><em>New Compact and Lightweight EF-S Macro Lens Opens Up a World of Photographic Possibilities and Helps Capture Close Subjects with Incredible Detail</em></p>
<p><strong>MELVILLE, N.Y., April 6, 2017</strong> – Compact and lightweight, the new Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM, announced today by Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, is the widest-angle Macro offering in Canon’s popular EF-S lens series. The new lens is designed to help both entry-level and advanced amateur DSLR photographers discover the incredible possibilities of macro photography. Capable of capturing close-up subjects with incredible detail, Canon’s new EF-S macro lens is also the first in the series to feature built-in Macro Lites that allow users to control lighting with ease.</p>
<p>“Macro lenses are an amazing way to explore the worlds that exist all around us, and the new Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM lens is the ideal starting point for amateur photographers eager to capture incredible, up-close details on the go,” said Yuichi Ishizuka, president and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc. “Whether capturing a delectable dessert or the subtleties of a backyard flower, users will be challenged to find new colors and shapes that turn everyday moments into art.”</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>The new Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM captures stunning images and is a terrific companion lens for entry-level users eager to expand beyond their existing Canon EOS DSLR kit lens. Capable of shooting as close as 30mm from the end of the lens to the subject, aspiring photographers can get up close to a fruit or flower for an entirely new perspective, while capturing high-quality images with beautiful background blur. Additional technologies built into the new Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM lens include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Popular 35mm focal length (56mm equivalent) and wide f/2.8 aperture</li>
<li>Hybrid IS system offers up to four stops* of shake correction</li>
<li>Smooth Movie Servo AF with Lead Screw-type STM ensures quiet AF operation</li>
<li>Full-time Manual Focus</li>
</ul>
<p>In a first for the EF-S lens series, the new Canon EF-S 35mm lens sports built-in Macro Lites that allow photographers to carefully arrange macro lighting without using special equipment. With built-in LED lights on each side of the lens, users can create compelling shadows on either side of a subject or adjust intensity to give images a sense of dimension. Once the scene is set, the lens uses superb rendering performance to capture high contrast, sharp images.</p>
<p>While specialized for high magnification photography, the Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM is still a versatile option for day-to-day use, easily capable of capturing portraits, landscapes or snapshots. As the latest addition to the lineup of EF-S lenses, Canon continues its commitment to providing a wide-range of affordable lens options for photographers of all levels.</p>
<p>The Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM lens is scheduled to be available in June 2017 for an estimated retail price of $349.99.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM $349: <a href="https://bhpho.to/2ndtUoR">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2nGb3y9">Amazon</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-s-35mm-2-8-macro-is-stm.html?acc=3">MPEX</a></strong></p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 33%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-29050 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2304824382.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2304824382-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/4475839448.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/4475839448-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/9288291937.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/9288291937-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 6, 2017)

Most impressive for this lens is inclusion of Hybrid IS and it quite a bit cheaper than I thought it would be.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 6, 2017)

"expensive enough" for a slow 35mm lens for APS-C image circle only ... most likely fully automated robo-assembly line ... quite some price premium for "Macro" ... over full frame EF 40/2.8 STM as well as EF-S 24/2.8.


----------



## Talys (Apr 6, 2017)

Wait... full time manual focus? Wasn't expecting that!!

The price is great. At $350, it's a no-brainer for me. The Macro and Macro light is pretty much a freebie.

@AvTvM - There's 4-stop Hybrid IS in there. I'll pay for that on a "cheap" (consumer grade) lens any day of the week. And, it's lead screw-type STM, so super smooth/quiet.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

Talys said:


> Wait... full time manual focus? Wasn't expecting that!!
> 
> The price is great. At $350, it's a no-brainer for me. The Macro and Macro light is pretty much a freebie.
> 
> @AvTvM - There's 4-stop Hybrid IS in there. I'll pay for that on a "cheap" (consumer grade) lens any day of the week. And, it's lead screw-type STM, so super smooth/quiet.



All STM lenses have FTM focus... _*by wire*_. Not the same thing as FTM _mechanical _focusing we're used to with the USM lenses.

Still, this is a good value. Will sell well.

- A


----------



## midluk (Apr 6, 2017)

Talys said:


> Wait... full time manual focus? Wasn't expecting that!!


It's almost definitely focus by wire, like every other STM lens. So FTM is effectively only usable in live view, when the lens is properly powered (not that much of a problem for macro) and there is no tactile feedback when you reach the end of the focus range and a slight focus lag.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> "expensive enough" for a slow 35mm lens for APS-C image circle only ... most likely fully automated robo-assembly line ... quite some price premium for "Macro" ... over full frame EF 40/2.8 STM as well as EF-S 24/2.8.



First of all, macro doesn't go in quotes if it's 1:1. (We just call it macro.)

Second, as I posted elsewhere, this price falls right in line with what we'd expect based on the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM and EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

Third, _your butthurt is showing_, AvTvM. : I fully recognize Canon did something unthinkable by not following the lens portfolio roadmap powerpoint you sent them (entitled "Speedy_IS_ pancakes_for_ the_win_stupidcanon.PPT"). 

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 6, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Most impressive for this lens is inclusion of Hybrid IS and it quite a bit cheaper than I thought it would be.


+1
Same thoughts here. But somehow it could have been expected when looking at the EF-M sibling.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

midluk said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Wait... full time manual focus? Wasn't expecting that!!
> ...



You can go MF through the viewfinder provided (if memory serves) you've got the shutter half-pressed, but as most of the recent bodies lack interchangeable screens, LV is a better move if circumstances allow. And I agree, MF is quite laggy on my EF 40mm.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > "expensive enough" for a slow 35mm lens for APS-C image circle only ... most likely fully automated robo-assembly line ... quite some price premium for "Macro" ... over full frame EF 40/2.8 STM as well as EF-S 24/2.8.
> ...


Well summed up. 

This is a lens I am not interested in, but I am able to understand why Canon developed it. 
Because there is a relevant market for it. A market AvTvM is not willing to see. And of course not his market :


----------



## andrei1989 (Apr 6, 2017)

i don't think it's been posted yet but...some sample photos:
http://www.lens-rumors.com/canon-ef-s-35mm-f2-8-macro-is-stm-lens-sample-images/


----------



## Talys (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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




Eh.... you are probably right. Canon likely considers 18-135 and 70-300 nano USM "full time manual", simply because you can grab the focus ring and turn it at any time that autofocus is engaged and override it. I was kind of thinking (dreaming?) that it would be STM focus, but had some clever tech to engage power as soon as you touch the focus ring, which to me would be a lot better.

And yeah MF via live view is the way to go for macro. But it'd be nice when using OVF for non-macro shots to be able to "full time manual focus" just by turning the focus ring, without having to worry about the shutter button.

On nano USM lenses, the lag is not very noticeable to me. However, the lack of tactile feedback is, and focus acceleration DEFINTIELY is -- that is, if you twist fast, focus jumps, and if you twist slow, focus changes in tiny steps. I guess it's just preference, or what I'm used to, but really don't like that. I wish there were a switch to turn it off.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 6, 2017)

Hopefully this'll come down to around 300 bux when pagan winter festival comes around.

I'll take it!


----------



## benkam (Apr 6, 2017)

Very good! Its combination of features and size/weight should make it a very popular prime for APS-C, supplanting even the usual EF 24/28/35 IS options in this FL range unless of course FF compatibility is desired. Its over twice the price than the 24 pancake but I think also much more useful than that one because of IS and macro. Just add the 55-250 and 10-18 up and below and that's a capable all-around, value system right there for many crop shooters.


----------



## LDS (Apr 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> most likely fully automated robo-assembly line ...



If you had read the DPReview article about the visit at the Canon factory where L lenses are assembled, Canon is moving to automated assembly line for L lenses like the 16-35/2.8 III as well... so what's the problem?

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4996495413/the-home-of-the-l-series-we-tour-canon-utsunomiya-factory?slide=24

and following slides.

This makes the 16-35/2.8 III an ugly lens?


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 6, 2017)

LDS said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > most likely fully automated robo-assembly line ...
> ...



No problem whatsoever [except for employees potentially or really made redundant]. Personally, I prefer my haircuts done by expert hands and my technical products made by expertly programmed robots ... better quality in both cases. 

My point was regarding pricing of the lens. I would have considered 450 or even more as expected by some here as really outrageous. As a customer I would like to also get a fair share of lower robo-assembly manufacturing costs ... in the form of lower prices. A simple little lens as this one might as well be priced at 299 like the EF-M 28 Macro that is a bit slower but has 1 lens element more or 199 or even 99 ... there is really not much more to an APS-C crop-only 35/2.8 IS lens even with 1:1 Macro capability compared to a fully FF-capable EF 40/2.8 STM or EF 50/1.8 STM. IS unit for such small lens elements is not a massive cost item ... neither are 2 LEDs up front ... just saying.

personally I not affected at all, since I do not buy crop-lenses in EF-S mount any longer and have sold all my EF-S lenses ... with the sole exception of the EF-S 60 Macro ... for occasional use via adapter on my EOS M. 

The other aspect I am questioning about this lens is whether it really was the most urgent priority for Canon to offer 2 macro lenses in EF-S mount, but not a single prime faster than f/2.8 and no ultra-wide prime either. But of course Canon market research has been proven to be infallible ... ;D


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> quite some price premium for "Macro" ... over full frame EF 40/2.8 STM as well as EF-S 24/2.8.



It is ever so slightly more expensive than I would have hoped.

But this lens has the superior hybrid IS, so it compensates for the up and down movement while you walk around too. Combine that with the new 77D built in IS, and you're going to have an incredible stable rig.

While I love those pancake lenses, not having IS is a serious pain the moment you want to capture some video.

I have the 40mm pancake, great lens for stills, unusable for video due to not having IS.

A lot of people who aren't interested in macro photography at all are going to want this lens. Because the only other option is the full frame 35mm f/2.0, which is far more expensive, outdated IS system, and doesn't have good coating leading to flaring in many shots with strong light.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

Come to think of it, isn't this the first EF-S prime with IS? It is isn't it.


----------



## LDS (Apr 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Personally, I prefer my haircuts done by expert hands and my technical products made by expertly programmed robots ... better quality in both cases.



In the same article huge glasses and big telephoto are still made by hand - it looks it's better quality that way, for the relatively limited number of lenses made. Quality does not depend on the way you assemble something, depends on how far you go to ensure a given level of quality. And not always automation costs less than human workers, even for high-end technical products.



AvTvM said:


> The other aspect I am questioning about this lens is whether it really was the most urgent priority for Canon to offer 2 macro lenses in EF-S mount, but not a single prime faster than f/2.8 and no ultra-wide prime either.



IMHO the reason is simple: since EF-S camera can use EF lenses, there's really little market and thereby incentive to make larger, heavier, expensive L-like lenses in EF-S mount.

Duplicating the lenses lineup will mean higher R&D costs, less economy of scale - and for which benefits? Would Canon really sell enough more lenses to offset it?

Maybe this time they reused to work done on the EF-M lens to create this one, thus it was "cheap" enough to deliver, and they saw a market for it. Sure Canon has no crystal ball, but nor we have it.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> The other aspect I am questioning about this lens is whether it really was the most urgent priority for Canon to offer 2 macro lenses in EF-S mount, but not a single prime faster than f/2.8



The point of EF-S and Canon's APS-C has always been affordability. Most people know this, Canon doesn't hide this, they mention it during interviews.

If you look at the EF-S lens line-up, all their lenses are affordable. Faster than f/2.8 would mean greatly increased costs. 

Canon has one EF-S lens faster than f/2.8 afaik, the 50mm f/1.8, but a 50mm is also the cheapest design you can make in a lens, and the 50mm f/1.8 is still cheap.

If you are expecting canon to introduce 14mm f/2.0 EF-S, you are going to be waiting a long long time.



The APS-C audience is increasingly coming from people wanting to share video, youtube, etc. So you see Canon increasingly add video features.

-STM on all EFS lenses, to make video focusing silent
-IS on all EF-S zoom lenses
-hybrid IS to compensate for up and down movement
-built in video IS in the 77D

They are also adding usability menus on their newest cameras, to make them even easier to use.

Their focus is far less on the speed of the lens, but instead on the usability of the lens and ergonomics of the camera. 

Imo, a good thing, the real money is coming from youtube vloggers and casual shooters, the market interested in professional landscape or wedding photography is incredibly small and isn't buying APS-C to begin with.

Fuji is coming out with very fast and expensive APS-C lenses and their marketshare is incredibly small compared to Canon's APS-C marketshare. I don't think Fuji is going in the right direction. ISO performance and IS keeps getting better, the need for very fast expensive lenses without IS is diminishing.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Apr 6, 2017)

About fast ef-s lenses, the question is how to get fastness the cheapest way. What is cheaper, a 50mm 2.8 lens or a 30mm 1.8? maybe for 1 single lens, the 30mm lens would be chaper, but if you want a macro, a low light lens and a fast standard zoom it may be chaeper to buy a FF camera which gains more than 1stop by sensor size.

It makes no sense to buy a 24mm 1.4 lens for crop, better get a 35 2.0 IS and a FF body.

For the macro, i got for the price of this lens a 100mm USM macro and ring flash both used, which is probably the better macro setup if the FF camera is already there. only disadvantage is, it's not a walk around lens, it's specially for macro and usable for portraits maybe.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

Fuji has a 14mm f/2.8 APS-C. It costs $900.

Canon has a 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM APS-C. It costs $280.

I think Canon's strategy is far better than Fuji.

The Canon lens is affordable, attracing a large following, and it has IS and silent STM AF, making it viable for video. 

You can see Canon APS-C attracting far far more users than Fuji, Fuji is a blip on the radar, a rounding error, compared to Canon. People like versatility, IS, silent STM AF, zoom, etc. What canon offers in APS-C is not a cheaper version of full frame, they offer innovative and fun products that are made for 2017, while Fuji is stuck in the past without decent video features, without IS, and with old-school lenses. Yes, their lenses are fast, but they're also heavy, big, loud, expensive, and very one-dimensional, they're stuck in the past.

Each year ISO performance increases. The need for very fast wide angle lenses decreases each year, Canon is looking ahead, improving features that matter to the general public, IS, silent and fast AF, portability and affordability.


----------



## gruhl28 (Apr 6, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> About fast ef-s lenses, the question is how to get fastness the cheapest way. What is cheaper, a 50mm 2.8 lens or a 30mm 1.8? maybe for 1 single lens, the 30mm lens would be chaper, but if you want a macro, a low light lens and a fast standard zoom it may be chaeper to buy a FF camera which gains more than 1stop by sensor size.
> 
> It makes no sense to buy a 24mm 1.4 lens for crop, better get a 35 2.0 IS and a FF body.
> 
> For the macro, i got for the price of this lens a 100mm USM macro and ring flash both used, which is probably the better macro setup if the FF camera is already there. only disadvantage is, it's not a walk around lens, it's specially for macro and usable for portraits maybe.



A fast EF-S lens would cost far less than buying a FF body and 35 2.0 IS, not to mention replacing all of one's EF-S lenses.


----------



## gruhl28 (Apr 6, 2017)

Nininini said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > The other aspect I am questioning about this lens is whether it really was the most urgent priority for Canon to offer 2 macro lenses in EF-S mount, but not a single prime faster than f/2.8
> ...



The 50mm f/1.8 is EF, not EF-S.

Canon still has no 50mm equivalent (31mm) fast EF-S prime. This new lens is close in focal length, but only f/2.8. Nothing for those of us who would like a fast normal lens for APS-C.


----------



## Azathoth (Apr 6, 2017)

What i really wanted is a cheap EF-S ultra-wide prime lens. It' doesn't need to be fast. It can be f4. Or f8! It can even be MF only. Do it Canon! . I'm pretty sure there are more people than myself shooting landscape than people shooting small bugs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2017)

Azathoth said:


> What i really wanted is a cheap EF-S ultra-wide prime lens. It' doesn't need to be fast. It can be f4. Or f8! It can even be MF only. Do it Canon! . I'm pretty sure there are more people than myself shooting landscape than people shooting small bugs.



But are you also pretty sure there are more APS-C owners shooting landscapes than shooting (small bugs + food + flowers + anything else small)? 

Also, how many APS-C owners shooting landscapes would choose a slow ultra-wide prime over a slow ultrawide zoom like the 10-18mm, which has IS and costs $280? I'm pretty sure that's not going to be many people besides you. 

So APS-C dSLR owners who want ultrawide for landscapes have a great option in the 10-18mm, and it's evident that in general consumers prefer zooms over primes. But APS-C owners who want a wider perspective for macro, or just an inexpensive macro lens with IS, had no option...until now.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Azathoth said:
> 
> 
> > What i really wanted is a cheap EF-S ultra-wide prime lens. It' doesn't need to be fast. It can be f4. Or f8! It can even be MF only. Do it Canon! . I'm pretty sure there are more people than myself shooting landscape than people shooting small bugs.
> ...



Agree with you, Neuro, but the general notion that Canon will only please the masses in crop and you need to go to EF to get specialized tools falls down pretty hard on the UWA end. Consider: 


A birder can fully live out his/her days in bliss in crop with a nice long EF lens, say a 100-400L II or possibly a big white prime.
A portraiture person can do the same with a 50L or 85L on crop (rather than, say, an 85L or 135L on FF).
A crop product/food/flora/insect person is drowning in macro options, both in EF-S and EF.

...while the UWA crop person is (relatively) SOL to step up to great glass. Their only 10mm-ish option is to 'step up' to an 11-24L (or go third party). I suppose that could work, but I have yet to see an 11-24 on a crop rig IRL in my travels.

I'm not advocating L lenses for crop or anything so dramatic, but a higher end UWA EF-S lens would sell quite well, I think. I still think it should be a zoom (and a 'Mk II' replacement for the EF-S 10-22 USM), but I understand why people might like a 10mm prime as well. Such an offering could address the one glaring gap the EF line can't really solve for crop shooters.

- A


----------



## Talys (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:



> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Azathoth said:
> ...



Generally speaking, I'm a pretty happy crop user. Since my photography only takes place in nice lighting (either non-moving objects in a studio or wildlife or flowers in sunny weather), the FF sensor benefits are a bit limited for me. I don't really enjoy photographing people, and my wife hates being photographed, so portraiture indoors or out is not an issue. However, when the right mix of price and features comes, I will buy a FF camera for landscapes -- probably the 6D2. It will also allow me to use a 50mm prime in some situations where APSC crops out part of the image (ie can't back up any further).

I am perfectly happy buying L lenses for my crop bodies, so long as it's something where the IQ is very important. I'm also perfectly happy buying consumer grade EFS lenses where it's less important -- especially, when the IQ of the EFS lens is good. For example, the 10-18, I think is a real gem. Good image quality, zoom, and IS; and this is a lens that I hardly use. *For me*, this lens makes the superwide prime unnecessary, because it's "good enough", even with f/4.5 at 10mm. But I can definitely see that there would be some people who would love a EFS prime near the bottom of that scale.


----------



## TeT (Apr 6, 2017)

The close focus is nice. was 30mm to be expected? Is it a typo? I note that both the 24 70 4L in macro mode and the efs 60 macro have 20cm close focus which is effectively 85% 1500% (?) anyways its A LOT farther away...


----------



## ksgal (Apr 6, 2017)

Azathoth said:


> What i really wanted is a cheap EF-S ultra-wide prime lens. It' doesn't need to be fast. It can be f4. Or f8! It can even be MF only. Do it Canon! . I'm pretty sure there are more people than myself shooting landscape than people shooting small bugs.



there is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens - 599 new but can be had under $400 used. 

so within $50 of the brand new ef-s 35mm macro.. what is the 10-22mm missing for you?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

TeT said:


> The close focus is nice. was 30mm to be expected? Is it a typo? I note that both the 24 70 4L in macro mode and the efs 60 macro have 20cm close focus which is effectively 85% farther away...


 
...from the sensor. Both of those lenses are bigger. See below for how different the new one is to the 24-70 in fully extended (close to the 0.7x macro mode size). It's hard to get the scaling right as TDP's shot is not a true side view and the mount is capped, but it's close enough.

Also, a wider FL macro by its nature has to dramatically bring in the MFD just to pull off a 1:1 mag, doesn't it? I want to say the recent Venus Laowa 15mm macro has less than a 1 cm of working distance to the front element. 

- A

P.S. Edit: don't mix up '30mm from the front element' and the MFD. MFD = to the sensor, whereas the working distance = MFD _minus lens length _(right? someone please correct me if that's off)


----------



## magarity (Apr 6, 2017)

The product description says the two lights are operated independently and both have bright and dim. But there's only one button. Does that really mean 7 presses to cycle from off back to off or is there another control that just hasn't shown in the pictures of the thing? Will new cameras have on-screen operation of the lights?


----------



## SeppOz (Apr 6, 2017)

Nininini said:


> Fuji is coming out with very fast and expensive APS-C lenses and their marketshare is incredibly small compared to Canon's APS-C marketshare. I don't think Fuji is going in the right direction. ISO performance and IS keeps getting better, the need for very fast expensive lenses without IS is diminishing.


Actually Fuji has brought out a few f2.0 primes (older 18mm pancake, 35mm, 23mm, and lately 50mm) that are much cheaper than the f1.4 and f1.2 primes, but good performers even wide open and well built. (As an aside, he 90mm f2 is expensive - as can be expected for that f stop / focal range). All but the 18mm are weather resistant.
So there is a choice.
Where I live, Fuji has rebates twice a year, in the one last October the 18 and 35 had $100 rebates. Not that expensive if you build up your lens collection over time when items are on sale. One of the reasons I switched to Fuji for most of my mirrorless.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

The $64,000 question: might we ever see an illuminated macro lens like this for EF?

Why we might: If Canon ever put out a stripped down / budget $1000 FF rig, there might be a market for a slightly watered-down illuminated macro offering.

Why we might not: tons of reasons. 


FF macro lenses have larger front elements that wouldn't suit this pancake front element / illuminated idea as well (would get pretty big diametrically, would't it?)
Canon wants to sell macro speedlites
Canon wants to sell 100Ls and surely a new 180L someday
The light is relatively unsophisticated/underpowered and would probably frustrate more serious macro folks
More 'serious' macro work is at longer FLs and larger working distances, which -- again -- wouldn't get much help from a tiny LED setup

So my money is on 'no' right now.

- A


----------



## NorbR (Apr 6, 2017)

magarity said:


> The product description says the two lights are operated independently and both have bright and dim. But there's only one button. Does that really mean 7 presses to cycle from off back to off or is there another control that just hasn't shown in the pictures of the thing? Will new cameras have on-screen operation of the lights?



I imagine it will work like it does on the EF-M version, i.e. a long press will toggle between both lights and single light. 

So you can toggle between two cycles:
Off -> Bright (both) -> Dim (both) -> Off
and
Off -> Bright (left) -> Dim (left) -> Bright (right) -> Dim (right) -> Off


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

SeppOz said:


> (As an aside, he 90mm f2 is expensive - as can be expected for that f stop / focal range).



The EF 85 f/1.8 USM and EF 100mm f/2 USM lenses giggle at what you just said.

Fuji overcharges because it would appear the market for high end crop-dedicated primes is (shockingly) a lot smaller than this forum would have us believe. Volumes have got to be next to nothing for their 16mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2 APD, 90mm f/2 lenses, etc.

(That said, rabid enthusiasts with money in their pocket proudly own them and thank their lucky stars _someone_ was willing to make them for a crop system.)

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Agree with you, Neuro, but the general notion that Canon will only please the masses in crop and you need to go to EF to get specialized tools falls down pretty hard on the UWA end. Consider:
> 
> 
> A birder can fully live out his/her days in bliss in crop with a nice long EF lens, say a 100-400L II or possibly a big white prime.
> ...



I don't really agree that it 'falls down hard'. Rather, consider that it's really only in the normal and wide ranges that there is significant optical/cost benefit derived from the APS-C format. 

Canon makes 'standard quality' EF lenses and 'high quality' (= L-series) lenses in wide, normal and tele ranges. But in the film days, if you wanted an ultrawide zoom lens, you had to go L-series. So, crop users now have the benefit of being able to pay a lot less for a UWA zoom. 

I'd actually argue that a UWA zoom is not a 'specialized' lens. For 'high quality' FF, you have two zoom trinities, fast and slow: 16-35+24-70+70-200 f/2.8 and 17-40+24-105+70-200 f/4. For APS-C users, there's only the slow/variable option: 10-18/22+18-55+55-250 f/4ish-5.6. 

There's one other key point your argument leaves out, at least as far as UWA landscape shooting. Generally, speaking, what you're mostly paying for with 'high quality' lenses is performance at or near thair max aperture. If you compare the 10-18 vs. the 11-24L at f/8, they aren't all that different (and certainly not 10-fold price different), the main difference is the lower distortion with the 11-24L, and that's really driven by the sensor size relative to the larger image circle of the EF lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> "expensive enough" for a slow 35mm lens for APS-C image circle only ... most likely fully automated robo-assembly line ... quite some price premium for "Macro" ... over full frame EF 40/2.8 STM as well as EF-S 24/2.8.



I expect its made in Taiwan, where they have high production rate facilities. At the very least, the lenses are ground on fully automatic machinery, and, of course plastic parts are molded on automatic machinery as they have been for 30 years. 

I wonder if they use Robots to deburr the molded plastic parts, their are lots of claims about doing it, but I retired before it was possible, so I don't know how well it actually works in practice for high rate production. Robotic assembly should not be a issue, but if labor is cheap and Robots expensive, there may still be lots of hand labor.

You can bet that production cost for the lens in >$100, the rest of the cost is related to recovery of design and tooling costs, shipping, storage costs, advertising, warranty service, including stocking spare parts upgrading software, and publishing service manuals. Then, there are both Canon's markup, taxes, and the Reseller markup.

Some figure on 8X the cost to produce to the Market price, but that drops as the item gets more expensive. For low production rate items, the markup is higher.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> There's one other key point your argument leaves out, at least as far as UWA landscape shooting. Generally, speaking, what you're mostly paying for with 'high quality' lenses is performance at or near thair max aperture. If you compare the 10-18 vs. the 11-24L at f/8, they aren't all that different (and certainly not 10-fold price different), the main difference is the lower distortion with the 11-24L, and that's really driven by the sensor size relative to the larger image circle of the EF lens.



All fair points -- appreciate the post.

The 10-18 is a gem -- please don't mistake my point. But it's not all about max aperture performance. That lens has a plastic mount, it's not sealed, it's not USM, it lacks a distance scale, it's not internally zooming despite a very modest 1.8x FL multiplier, etc.

In short, Canon gave UWA users a fine tool optically that has the feature-level charm of a base-level Honda Civic. If _all you shoot_ is landscapes on crop, surely you wish for a little more here.

I still contend a rock-solid EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM II (or perhaps a beefier f/2.8-4 version) that is sealed, USM, has all the trappings of the 16-35 f/4L IS made for crop would sell well at a $699-799 price point. 

- A


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

Talys said:


> Generally speaking, I'm a pretty happy crop user.



Same. There's things I would want, but nothing I _need_.

I would want a cheap small 100mm f/2.8 EF-S prime with IS for example. A short tele instead of carrying my 55-250mm IS STM everywhere. But I don't _need_ it. 

(yep yep, I know about the 100mm f/2.0, but it doesn't have IS, bit prone to flaring, and is still a bit expensive _for me_)

Just dreams really. Not like I need it.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 6, 2017)

The description on the site BH, cites front filter 49mm, but looking at the photos, there does not seem to be any thread with diameter 49mm.
Does the outer edge of the lens work as a built-in lens hood?
This lens hood would be pulled forward, and there is a 49mm thread?


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The $64,000 question: might we ever see an illuminated macro lens like this for EF?
> 
> Why we might: If Canon ever put out a stripped down / budget $1000 FF rig, there might be a market for a slightly watered-down illuminated macro offering.
> 
> ...



I think it might... anywhere from 35 to 50mm... It would then be the successor of the 50 macro but with the flexibility of using it for additional purposes.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The $64,000 question: might we ever see an illuminated macro lens like this for EF?



Ring light flashes combined with lenses that can focus short distance are very popular among dentists.

I have 2 dentist friends, 2 brothers, both have a canon full frame system with a ring light.

I'm sure they would love a lens like this for FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The 10-18 is a gem -- please don't mistake my point. But it's not all about max aperture performance. That lens has a plastic mount, it's not sealed, it's not USM, it lacks a distance scale, it's not internally zooming despite a very modest 1.8x FL multiplier, etc.
> 
> In short, Canon gave UWA users a fine tool optically that has the feature-level charm of a base-level Honda Civic. If _all you shoot_ is landscapes on crop, surely you wish for a little more here.
> 
> I still contend a rock-solid EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM II (or perhaps a beefier f/2.8-4 version) that is sealed, USM, has all the trappings of the 16-35 f/4L IS made for crop would sell well at a $699-799 price point.



I'm not sure we'll _ever_ see a weather-sealed EF-S lens. Might see another nano USM lens, but I think it'll be most if not all lead-screw STM going forward. I agree that a 10-22 with sealing and USM would be a nice lens...I just really doubt Canon will ever make one.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 6, 2017)

gruhl28 said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Well...one option would be the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art. A very good lens. Not a prime, but a wide aperture lens and a good to great performer. I've used one - rented it for a trip to Tucson, used it extensively at the PIMA Air & Space museum. Excellent for capturing planes etc...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I wonder if they use Robots to deburr the molded plastic parts, their are lots of claims about doing it, but I retired before it was possible, so I don't know how well it actually works in practice for high rate production. Robotic assembly should not be a issue, but if labor is cheap and Robots expensive, there may still be lots of hand labor.



I develop products in a different field, but we have both injection and compression molding processes. Deburr, flash cleanup, mold gate removal, parting line cleanup, etc. could certainly be done robotically but it's indeed a question of scale/economics -- how many parts do you need to run, how complicated a mold tool do you have to design, how much trouble is the manual op vs. automating it, how much value of molding it in the first place is lost if you need complicated cleanup afterwards, etc. 

Also, given some symmetry with these elements, I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of other cheaper non-robotic processes to clean up parts -- mass finishing, tumbling, even really simple high speed CNC mill passes may do the job, but then you'd have to mask/fixture these things (which, again, erodes your cost savings for molding them in the first place).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The description on the site BH, cites front filter 49mm, but looking at the photos, there does not seem to be any thread with diameter 49mm.
> Does the outer edge of the lens work as a built-in lens hood?
> This lens hood would be pulled forward, and there is a 49mm thread?



Good question. Perhaps the filter threads are only available if you use the hood for this lens?

(How do you CPL an EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM? That may hold the answer.)

- A


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 6, 2017)

Azathoth said:


> What i really wanted is a cheap EF-S ultra-wide prime lens. It' doesn't need to be fast. It can be f4. Or f8! It can even be MF only. Do it Canon! . I'm pretty sure there are more people than myself shooting landscape than people shooting small bugs.



Buy the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 MF only. Not the newly released f2.4, that baby, while looking like a stellar performer is not cheap. The 14mm f2.8 is a reasonably cheap lens. However, it has very strong vignetting, and I'm not sure how well it handles flare.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > The description on the site BH, cites front filter 49mm, but looking at the photos, there does not seem to be any thread with diameter 49mm.
> ...


I've already found the answer: An ugly lens hood, sold separately.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2017)

Nininini said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The $64,000 question: might we ever see an illuminated macro lens like this for EF?
> ...



They'd be better off getting a crop camera. For dental work where large prints are never a priority and almost everything is viewed at screen resolutions a ff camera offers no advantages over an APS (or smaller) sensor. Particularly bearing in mind that ISO can be mitigated by the artificial illumination.

The three overwhelming 'advantages' of ff are 1, ISO performance that for dentists is negated by flash use, 2, narrow dof control, which isn't wanted for dental macro work and 3, the ability to output (print) larger, again not a dental issue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > The description on the site BH, cites front filter 49mm, but looking at the photos, there does not seem to be any thread with diameter 49mm.
> ...



Yes, you need the hood on to mount a filter. If you look _really_ close, you'll see there are actually filter threads inside the ring holding the ring light. That's how the hood mounts to the lens, and the hood precludes use of the ring light. The EF-M 28mm macro has the same setup. In theory, you could screw on a filter instead of the hood, but the problem is that the threading is so small, there are not filters (CPL/ND/etc.) available in that size (IIRC, the thread diamater of tme EF-M hood mount is ~22mm).


----------



## Talys (Apr 6, 2017)

Wow, what a fugly lens hood, hahaha. Coffee mug, meet lens cap.

It would look much nicer if it were cylindrical, instead of conical. The taper makes it look like they're meant to be stacked.

And at the price it will probably cost ($50 piece of plastic?) they could have made the inside lip that covers the macro lites nicer too (why not transparent, so that the macro lites can still work?).


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

Talys said:


> Wow, what a fugly lens hood, hahaha. Coffee mug, meet lens cap.
> 
> It would look much nicer if it were cylindrical, instead of conical. The taper makes it look like they're meant to be stacked.



All the pancake lens hoods are crappy thread-in like this, and though this isn't technically a pancake, it has the front element and shading needs of one.

(35 f/2.8 pic from TDP below)

But I agree, this hood would appear to block the ring lights. The EF-M 28mm lens did the same, apparently.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2017)

Talys said:


> Wow, what a fugly lens hood, hahaha. Coffee mug, meet lens cap.
> 
> It would look much nicer if it were cylindrical, instead of conical. The taper makes it look like they're meant to be stacked.
> 
> *And at the price it will probably cost ($50 piece of plastic?)* they could have made the inside lip that covers the macro lites nicer too (why not transparent, so that the macro lites can still work?).



It will almost certainly be included with the lens, since it's necessary to mount a filter. The hood is included with the EF-M 28mm Macro.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

I never put lens hoods on my lenses. I try not to shoot at the sun. If you stay out of that 30 degree angle facing the sun, you don't really need a lens hood.

I've never had a shot where a lens hood was enough to remedy the light veiling you get. With or without a lens hood, it would have been a ruined shot.

I feel lens coatings help....but lens hoods...I don't feel like they help a lot.

Some people use them to protect their lenses, I have just never dropped a lens or banged it against stuff, so....hmm.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, what a fugly lens hood, hahaha. Coffee mug, meet lens cap.
> ...



Confirmed by Carnathan:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-35mm-f-2.8-Macro-IS-STM-Lens.aspx
_
"To solve the filter attachment issue for this lens, threads were incorporated into the lens hood and with the elevated importance of this hood, Canon included the ES-27 Lens Hood in the box. "_

And why wouldn't they? It's dirt cheap to make -- no bayonet fitting, no release button, not felted surface, no white screen printing, etc. It likely just a one-shot molded piece.

- A


----------



## LDS (Apr 6, 2017)

gruhl28 said:


> Canon still has no 50mm equivalent (31mm) fast EF-S prime. This new lens is close in focal length, but only f/2.8. Nothing for those of us who would like a fast normal lens for APS-C.



You don't really need an exact equivalent of the 50mm focal. It became common as a "standard" lens because it was close to the image diagonal (which is actually 43mm) , and cheap to build. Some brands didn't use 50mm but other focals close to it. In the past some used 49mm, others 55mm or even 58mm. There's no magic in the "50" number.

A 28mm is equivalent to a 45mm and it's perfectly fine if you need a "50mm" prime on a crop body. The 28/1.8 is enough fast?


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

A regular cheaper version of this lens without the macro light and macro ability, but keeping IS, would actually be nice. 

Because I agree, it's a rather ugly lens, with the lens hood it's just yuck. Sorry for my vanity lol.


----------



## gruhl28 (Apr 6, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> gruhl28 said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



True, but I've read of autofocus issues with the Sigma 18-35. The 18-35 f/1.8 and 50-100 f/1.8 are interesting lenses, but autofocus issues with the 18-35 and no IS on the 50-100 have put me off them. Did you find the autofocus worked accurately on the 18-35?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

Nininini said:


> Some people use them to protect their lenses, I have just never dropped a lens or banged it against stuff, so....hmm.



I've warmed up to hoods for non-flare-related reasons:


It's less about drops for me than it is about incidental contact. If you use a dangling sling-like strap (like a BlackRapid), the rig+lens slightly (and gently) jostles about, and for some lenses, the front of the lens might bump your belt, a dangling backpack strap, or perhaps something you are walking past. A hood fends that off.


Children's fingers. Dogs' noses. You get the idea -- it's a buffer.

That said, hoods + CPLs buried inside + frequently shifting from landscape to portrait orientation = drives. me. nuts. I end up quickly yanking the hood and wearing it as the world's tackiest bangle on my arm while I shoot without it and manage the CPL much faster.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2017)

Nininini said:


> I never put lens hoods on my lenses. I try not to shoot at the sun. If you stay out of that 30 degree angle facing the sun, you don't really need a lens hood.
> 
> I've never had a shot where a lens hood was enough to remedy the light veiling you get. With or without a lens hood, it would have been a ruined shot.
> 
> ...



And that is your prerogative. I do use hoods, have dropped lenses on more than one occasion (indeed I have documented my snapped in two 16-35 f2.8 and my 11-24) and have banged, knocked and brushed my lenses against things (and they against my lenses) more times than I could ever count.

If you want an example of a lens that performs dramatically differently in a real shooting environment with or without a hood look no further than the 24-70 f2.8 MkI.

On the other hand I don't use 'protective filters' and have never damaged a front element.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 6, 2017)

Price in Europe/Germany is now also known:

MRSP: 429,- Euro

Once again a little bit expensive compared to the U.S..
I would have expected some 399,- Euro - still not really matching the exchange rate.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Price in Europe/Germany is now also known:
> 
> MRSP: 429,- Euro
> 
> ...



Auch!

that's far over what most STM lenses cost, and a bit over my budget that I will have to pass

This would make it the most expensive EF-S to date I believe. Hopefully this isn't some kind of trend of raising prices.

Since you mentioned germany, I looked at Amazon.de, other STM lenses are nowhere near that expensive.

-Canon EF-S 55-250mm STM....................*EUR 162,42 *
-Canon EF-S 24 mm f/2.8 STM .................*EUR 150,90*
-Canon EF 40mm f/2,8 STM .....................*EUR 158,39*
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM.....................* EUR 112,79*
-Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM.....*EUR 238,00*
-Canon EF-S 18-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS STM...*EUR 344,44*


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

Nininini said:


> This would make it the most expensive EF-S to date I believe.



I recognize Europe is a shade more expensive than the US, but surely you're kidding:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&ci=274&Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&N=4288584247+4108103567+4108103536+4291570227

I count a good eight Canon-made EF-S lenses that cost more than this new one.

- A


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > This would make it the most expensive EF-S to date I believe.
> ...




I don't know what shop that is, but they ask insane prices, the lenses on Amazon Europe are almost half the price.

I can't find a single EF-S STM lens costing above EUR 400 in Europe. Not one.


----------



## Crosswind (Apr 6, 2017)

Azathoth said:


> What i really wanted is a cheap EF-S ultra-wide prime lens. It' doesn't need to be fast. It can be f4. Or f8! It can even be MF only. Do it Canon! . I'm pretty sure there are more people than myself shooting landscape than people shooting small bugs.



Well I already have a nice macro lens (100mm L IS USM). So I also hoped for an UWA prime (CR guy explicitly mentioned at some point, that the new EFS lens won't be something special like a macro - but exactly the opposite came true). I only had one alternative, if Canon wouldn't come out with an UWA; go and have a look and the fantastic Samyang 10mm f/2.8. I can really recommend it. Y'know it's MF only, but god damn that thing is sharp. Btw. reading reviews and looking at some sample shots, I didn't expect it to perform THAT good; you will be surprised (if you can get a *good* copy)!


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

Meh, I realize that you linked the newer 18-135 EF-S with the micro USM motor....but even that lens can be had for EURO 350 from Amazon france.

Why is that US shop asking $600 for it? That's crazy.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 6, 2017)

I just checked Amazon US, it's $600 on Amazon US and EURO 350 on Amazon France and Germany.

Holy moley, you guys are paying like twice what we pay in Europe for EF-S lenses.

Import taxes from Japan?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2017)

Nininini said:


> I can't find a single EF-S STM lens costing above EUR 400 in Europe. Not one.



Ah, you added STM. Yes. You are correct. USM is where the prices go up.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2017)

Nininini said:


> This would make it the most expensive EF-S to date I believe.





Nininini said:


> I can't find a single EF-S STM lens costing above EUR 400 in Europe. Not one.



Your first statement is ludicrous. 

Your revised statement seems correct.


----------



## slclick (Apr 7, 2017)

Nininini said:


> I never put lens hoods on my lenses. I try not to shoot at the sun. If you stay out of that 30 degree angle facing the sun, you don't really need a lens hood.
> 
> I've never had a shot where a lens hood was enough to remedy the light veiling you get. With or without a lens hood, it would have been a ruined shot.
> 
> ...



Wow, I am trying to imagine you walking around with 30 degrees in your head dismissing the opportunity to take certain shots doe to flare. I just don't like the look of a hoods vs no hoods fight on the forum. Helmets vs no helmets is bad enough, not too mention Campag vs Shimano on bike forums. Here we have filters vs no filters and crop vs FF. It was just that 30 degree thing...wow.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 7, 2017)

Nininini said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Price in Europe/Germany is now also known:
> ...



it's not the most expensive lens, because you are looking at sale prices versus MSRP first out the door retail pricing.

not exactly a fair comparision. wait two to five years like you are with those above lenses and compare again.


----------



## TeT (Apr 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> P.S. Edit: don't mix up '30mm from the front element' and the MFD. MFD = to the sensor, whereas the working distance = MFD _minus lens length _(right? someone please correct me if that's off)



I might have mixed em up a little...

Still this lens should be closer to the glass than any of the other canon macros...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2017)

TeT said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. Edit: don't mix up '30mm from the front element' and the MFD. MFD = to the sensor, whereas the working distance = MFD _minus lens length _(right? someone please correct me if that's off)
> ...



The EF-M 28mm might win that prize (wider FL + 1.2:1), but as TDP doesn't review and publish convenient spec lists for EF-M lenses, that's just a guess.

- A


----------



## Talys (Apr 7, 2017)

Eh....

Okay, I get it, this is a more expensive EFS STM lens than other EFS STM lenses. But...

- It's the only EFS STM lens to have the new nano-USM exterior design, which feels like a significantly better build quality than older STMs (compare 18-135 STM with 18-135 nano USM), and also looks and feels more premium.

- It's the only EFS STM with a macro light

- It's the only EFS STM macro (I think?)

- It's the only EFS STM Prime with IS (I think?)

If none of these features are valuable to you, then obviously, this lens is a terrible value. But surely, one can understand that, these attributes will make the lens more expensive, right?

If Canon stripped all the features out of it, and made it just a 35mm efs prime... what would be the point? Just stick with the 40mm EF STM prime. And if you go, "well, I don't care about macro or IS or macro lights, and I'm not paying for a premium-looking unless it has a red ring around it"... then... just buy the 40mm EF STM prime


----------



## Woody (Apr 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > I have 2 dentist friends, 2 brothers, both have a canon full frame system with a ring light.
> ...



An EOS-M5 + 28 mm f/3.5 macro or SL1 + 35 mm f/2.8 macro makes a lot more sense


----------



## vangelismm (Apr 7, 2017)

Woody said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



Does not!
no one wants a lens inside the mounth.
at least a ef-s 60mm is required,


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 7, 2017)

Nininini said:


> I just checked Amazon US, it's $600 on Amazon US and EURO 350 on Amazon France and Germany.
> 
> Holy moley, you guys are paying like twice what we pay in Europe for EF-S lenses.
> 
> Import taxes from Japan?



I haven't checked Amazon but B&H has it listed for $349.00USD. Not anywhere near the $600 you say Amazon shows it as - by the way, what market/region are you checking Amazon from? Just curious... No, I just checked, Amazon also has it listed at $349.00USD.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 7, 2017)

vangelismm said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## AJ (Apr 7, 2017)

Interesting lens. 

With the short focal length, hybrid IS, and built-in lighting, I can see this lens being handy for product photography for the web (ebay, craigslist etc).


----------



## PHOTOPROROCKIES (Apr 7, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > I just checked Amazon US, it's $600 on Amazon US and EURO 350 on Amazon France and Germany.
> ...



In Canada pricing is $459.00 CAD and the lens hood that you need to use filters is $49.99 so it will not be coming with one unfortunately but I'm not actually surprised by that.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2017)

PHOTOPROROCKIES said:


> In Canada pricing is $459.00 CAD and the lens hood that you need to use filters is $49.99 so it will not be coming with one unfortunately but I'm not actually surprised by that.



The hood comes comes with the lens for reasons Neuro posted earlier -- confirmed by TDP (my post above) and at B&H just now (see screenshot). 

Are you saying Canada will be offering a different SKU for the lens that doesn't have the hood in the box? ???

- A


----------



## SkynetTX (Apr 7, 2017)

Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one. 
1. It's an STM lens therefore it *does not* support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with *ring-type USM do*.
2. *Full-Time Manual* means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than *it's not Full-Time*.
3. The MFD is only 13 cm and the MWD is only 3 cm. This might be good for flowers, food and other static subjects but it's extremly hard to get this close to beetles or spiders, not to mention butterflies, unless they are dead.
Therefore this lens is useless for me. 
Instead of this I need – and I think it's not only me – the following lenses:
1. EF-S 250mm OR 300mm f/5.6 IS USM Macro (MFD must be between 0.75 and 1 meter) for beetles, 
2. EF-S 10-18mm f/2.8 IS USM for landscapes,
3. EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8-4 IS USM for general purposes,
4. EF-S 55-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for wildlife.
All of these lenses must be equipped with *ring-type USM* motor since this is only one that *really supports Full-Time Manual* focusing.
Focus-by-wire technology should be used only in *EF-V* lenses created for videographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> PHOTOPROROCKIES said:
> 
> 
> > In Canada pricing is $459.00 CAD and the lens hood that you need to use filters is $49.99 so it will not be coming with one unfortunately but I'm not actually surprised by that.
> ...



No doubt he is simply making an (incorrect) assumption, based on the fact that the hood is also sold separately. The EF-M hood is also sold separately, because people can lose them. Hoods for L-series lenses are sold separately, too.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one.
> 1. It's an STM lens therefore it *does not* support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with *ring-type USM do*.
> 2. *Full-Time Manual* means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than *it's not Full-Time*.
> 3. The MFD is only 13 cm and the MWD is only 3 cm. This might be good for flowers, food and other static subjects but it's extremly hard to get this close to beetles or spiders, not to mention butterflies, unless they are dead.
> ...



1 or 2) Those are your definitions and Canon disagrees: they call this new lens as being FTM focusing -- it's right in the announcement. 

I get your point, however, but I call what you call FTM as 'FTM _mechanical_ focusing'. It is different and clearly better for stills, yes.

3) *This new lens is not for bugs.* It's for the 'look at what I'm eating/doing/fixing/selling' social media world: food / eBay / Etsy / YouTube electronics teardown / DIY fix-it videos. If you want a bug macro lens, Canon (and others) sell a number of those already. 

But I agree that STM > no focus motor at all (like the old squeaky nifty fifties prior to STM), but otherwise it's not for me. USM or bust.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> No doubt he is simply making an (incorrect) assumption, based on the fact that the hood is also sold separately. The EF-M hood is also sold separately, because people can lose them. Hoods for L-series lenses are sold separately, too.



Presumed the same. $49 CAD is salty, though. Even at $28 here in the US I find that quite expensive. It lacks the bayonet / press-button attachment / felted interior of traditional hoods and (seems to go for a fairly budget single piece of molded plastic. Unless they are turning the threads after molding or something, margins on a $28 MSRP have got to be through the roof.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one.
> 1. It's an STM lens therefore it *does not* support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with *ring-type USM do*.
> 2. *Full-Time Manual* means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than *it's not Full-Time*.
> 
> All of these lenses must be equipped with *ring-type USM* motor since this is only one that *really supports Full-Time Manual* focusing.




Well, you are welcome to define things however you want...inside of your own head. Since my EF 85mm f/1.2L II has *ring-type USM* but, according to _your_ definition, does not have full-time manual focusing…I'm going to officially announce that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 7, 2017)

slclick said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > I never put lens hoods on my lenses. I try not to shoot at the sun. If you stay out of that 30 degree angle facing the sun, you don't really need a lens hood.
> ...



How hard is it to remember to not shoot in the direction of the sun? Shots against the sun are never going to be pleasing shots anyway, unless you like extreme light flaring and veiling.

Lenses used to have no coatings, then they got coatings that helped very little, now they have coatings that do a good job blocking out stray side-light. Lens hoods mattered a lot more in the past, where lenses flared like crazy, now they help very little. You can't fix light veiling, not with a lens hood not with a coating, coatings took care of most flaring.

From my experience, shots within a 30 degree angle of the sun, will always cause veiling, regardless of a lens hood or not, regardless of coatings.

I have *never * had a shot where I thought _"if only I had used my lens hood this shot wouldn't have had veiling and would have come out great"_. Nope, if I'm shooting in direct light, a lens hood wouldn't have made the veiling any better, it might have improved contrast a little bit, but I would have still thrown away the shot anyway.

Some need those clips to attach instead of just screwing them on, some are heavy, many are made for full frame instead of APS-C viewing frustrum, some that are petal shape should have been ring shape due to the APS-C crop factor, some are made from garbage plastic, some from overly heavy metal, lens hoods are plain annoying.

Like the lens hoods on those pancake lenses, they are pointless, they don't help one iota, and they turn a beautiful lens into something extremely ugly.

The engineer who made this was laughing when he designed this. There is no possible way this thing helps against _*anything*_, the only thing it can possibly do is collect dirt.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2017)

Nininini said:


> Like the lens hoods on those pancake lenses, they are pointless, they don't help one iota, and they turn a beautiful lens into something extremely ugly.



Agree on the pancake hood -- the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM's hood is the one hood I don't use because I don't even own one.

But I do not give a whip about how it looks. I don't fetishize my rig like it's a sculpture -- it's an image capture device. I just use it. 

People fawn over the Art and newer Tamron prime designs for their smooth surfaced looks and I just think "that's an opportunity lost to give me an engineered texture to better grip things." 

- A


----------



## Nininini (Apr 7, 2017)

I am a fan of UV filters, if I know I'm shooting in a dirty city with smog, or sand, since a large part what causes light veiling and contrast loss is particles on the lens. That stray light hitting particles and bouncing around inside the elements, is what causing the majority of the veiling / flaring / anomalies..in direct light. At least an UV filter does something more useful, keeping your lens clean, just toss your UV filter under the sink if it's dirty...don't try that with your lens. The filter itself might cause a puny amount of contrast loss if it's a cheap filter, but it beats getting your lens dirty.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 7, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> I haven't checked Amazon but B&H has it listed for $349.00USD. Not anywhere near the $600 you say Amazon shows it as - by the way, what market/region are you checking Amazon from? Just curious... No, I just checked, Amazon also has it listed at $349.00USD.



Actually, it's my fault, there are now *3 different* canon 18-135mm EF-S lenses in production afaik.

The older IS one, the "vanilla" STM one, and the one with that micro USM motor, which some sites refer to as STM too.

That newer one with the micro USM is almost twice as expensive, even though the image quality is the same, it's all due to that AF motor, kinda silly there is such a price difference, considering the lens elements seem to be identical.


----------



## Nininini (Apr 7, 2017)

It also doesn't help they all look similar, these 3 are all 18-135 EF-S, all currently actively sold by Amazon and all seem to be actively produced by Canon.

Good luck picking the right one new photographers =/


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2017)

Nininini said:


> That newer one with the micro USM is almost twice as expensive, even though the image quality is the same, it's all due to that AF motor, kinda silly there is such a price difference, considering the lens elements seem to be identical.



Depending on what you shoot, faster focus = less missed shots and more keepers due to 'the moment has passed' or the subject moving too quickly for the lens to keep up with. STM is great, and you sure can can take a great sports / child running around / wildlife shot on STM, but there's no way your hit rate would be the same as with a modern USM lens. In my mind, if you only shoot stills you should always choose USM (if you can).

Also, as others have said, USM _usually _(the 85L II is a noted exception) gets you the classic mechanical focusing ring that you can operate with the camera off and FTM mechanical override of the AF. Also very nice. Most Sony GM lens owners probably wish they had this functionality over the FBW they have now.

So, yes, USM is worth paying for. And the $599 18-135 you are referring to has _nano_ USM, not _micro _USM. As any EF 50mm f/1.4 USM owner will tell you, the two are not the same. 

- A


----------



## Talys (Apr 8, 2017)

There is a world of difference in the apparent build quality (how it feels) between the 18-135 STM and 18-135 (nano) USM. There's just no comparison; the nano USM is way nicer.

The difference in AF speed and noise is also worlds different. When 18-135 STM came out, the possibility of me buying it was zero, because other than the focal range, it really had nothing over other lenses that I already owned, and it looked, felt, and took pictures like a kit lens.

But the nano USM, I not only bought, but happily have it mounted in my glovebox camera (replacing 24-105L), because the autofocus is wickedly fast and quiet that it's surreal. It also makes great videos. Sure, the IQ at the top and bottom of the focal range is nothing to write home about, and you have to step it down to take nice pictures, but it's a good compromise between superzooms where almost all the pictures are iffy, and trinity lenses that can have either restrictive focal ranges, require swaps, or are just too big.

The 70-300 nano is also a lens that I really like, for similar reasons (but the AF on that is not as super fast). The build quality and look doesn't hurt it, for sure, and it's a fun lens for handheld shots that just gives a little more FL than 70-200.

If that's the direction of the new "consumer" grade lenses -- I'm happy with that. I don't want to spend L prices for every focal length, especially of those that I don't use much, or for primes with marginal use, because often, the consumer grade primes are plenty good enough for me. But I still enjoy nicely built gear. And also, sometimes, I need a second lens in a FL that I already have one of, but for a different camera bag, and can't justify buying ANOTHER super expensive lens.


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Agree with you, Neuro, but the general notion that Canon will only please the masses in crop and you need to go to EF to get specialized tools falls down pretty hard on the UWA end. Consider:
> 
> 
> A birder can fully live out his/her days in bliss in crop with a nice long EF lens, say a 100-400L II or possibly a big white prime.
> ...



Well summed up, my wish for an ultrawide compact prime is because I bought a 16-35 f4 IS as my walkaround lens for a crop body, I also own the EF-S 10-22 but although it's fairly small a compact prime would allow me to sell the 10-22 as it's range is mostly covered by the 16-35 except at the wide end. Then I could travel with the zoom on the camera and the prime taking up minimal space in a pouch for when 16mm isn't wide enough.


----------



## Talys (Apr 8, 2017)

insanitybeard said:


> Well summed up, my wish for an ultrawide compact prime is because I bought a 16-35 f4 IS as my walkaround lens for a crop body, I also own the EF-S 10-22 but although it's fairly small a compact prime would allow me to sell the 10-22 as it's range is mostly covered by the 16-35 except at the wide end. Then I could travel with the zoom on the camera and the prime taking up minimal space in a pouch for when 16mm isn't wide enough.



Give the 10-18 EFS a try for the wide end. It's everything a good EFS zoom lens should be -- basic lens, light, cheap, and solid IQ. Cons: no USM ring, no weather seal, kit-lens feel.

IMO observably better IQ than the 10-22 at pretty much every FL and aperture (though admittedly, I only mostly use it at the wider end). Sharper, for sure.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 8, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Canon officially announced the lens so I officially announce what I think to be a problem with this one.
> 1. It's an STM lens therefore it *does not* support Full-Time Manual focusing. None of the lenses with focus-by-wire technology does. Only lenses with *ring-type USM do*.
> 2. *Full-Time Manual* means that you can rotate the focusing ring even if the lens is not attached to the camera. If the camera must be turned on and awake in order to use manual focusing than *it's not Full-Time*.
> 3. The MFD is only 13 cm and the MWD is only 3 cm. This might be good for flowers, food and other static subjects but it's extremly hard to get this close to beetles or spiders, not to mention butterflies, unless they are dead.
> ...


As far as butterflies are concerned it all depends on your patience and skill on getting close to them. Sure 180mm macro makes it easy to photograph them but that doesnt mean using shorter focal length lenses are a handicap.
Here is an example of how close you can get to butterfly, I shot this photo(check attached photo) with a vivitar 28mm reversed which gives me similar working distance as the EF-S 35mm macro. Also as far as spiders are concerned they are the easiest subjects to get close to(depends on your comfort level), I regularly use that 28mm reversed to shoot spiders and I have to get close to them and I never had a single issue with that. 

This is another photo I took using my friends Nikon 85mm Macro(for crop):


Gram Blue by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

100mm L:


Blue-Bordered Plane by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


----------



## Talys (Apr 8, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> All of these lenses must be equipped with *ring-type USM* motor since this is only one that *really supports Full-Time Manual* focusing.
> Focus-by-wire technology should be used only in *EF-V* lenses created for videographers.



I think you're going to be disappointed with Canon. Maybe I'm wrong; I hope I am -- but I suspect that there won't be many -- if _any_ -- new EF or EFS lens that aren't L that have mechanical focus.

Consider all of Canon's 2016-2017 lens releases:

1. EF-S 18-135 USM
2. EF 16-35L III USM <- L series, mechanical
3. EF 24-105L II USM <- L series, mechanical
4. EF 70-300 II USM
5. EF-S 18-55 STM (smaller 2017 version)
6. EF-S 35 STM

Of these lenses, the 16-35L III and 24-104L II are the only mechanical focus lenses. The other four are all focus by wire stepper motors. There aren't mechanical range windows on the top of any of the non-L's either (though the 70-300 has the digital one, that I suppose, pairs with an electronic focus). Also note that there have not been any mechanical focus EF-S lenses of late. I think the writing is on the wall.

In fact, you have to go pretty far back to find consumer-grade ring USM in EF or EFS. Maybe 35mm f/2 around 2012-2013? And green ring DO lenses don't count... they are not "consumer" lenses


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 8, 2017)

Talys said:


> In fact, you have to go pretty far back to find consumer-grade ring USM in EF or EFS. Maybe 35mm f/2 around 2012-2013? And green ring DO lenses don't count... they are not "consumer" lenses



You are correct. Presuming you're not counting DO lenses, I believe the last mechanical FTM / ring USM non-L lenses were the non-L EF 24/28/35 'IS refresh' lenses of 2012.

(This bodes terribly for my EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM, which is apparently (according to CR) going to be a straight EF 50 f/1.4 USM II -- _but with Nano USM_, which = focus by wire. :-[)

That sucks something fierce (if true), b/c those IS refresh lenses are awesome and we need more of them.

- A


----------



## Dfunk99 (Apr 8, 2017)

Canon bringing out this lens, when they Need to update their 50mm 1.4, also a 20mm 2.8 or faster & update their 28mm 1.8 to one with IS. Guess none of the above matter to them.


----------



## Talys (Apr 8, 2017)

Dfunk99 said:


> Canon bringing out this lens, when they Need to update their 50mm 1.4, also a 20mm 2.8 or faster & update their 28mm 1.8 to one with IS. Guess none of the above matter to them.



Again, looking at Canon's strategy, these iterations will either be focus by wire, consumer grade or pro-targeted L lenses.

With the exception of 50mm, the consumer grade lenses are unlikely to be faster than 2.8 -- there haven't been any in God-knows-how-long. So if you see a 28mm 1.8 IS, it will probably be L and expensive and heavy. How many people will want that? I don't know, but I suspect fewer than people who want 35mm 2.8 IS macro and cheap -- or 28mm 2.8 IS and cheap.

I know we would all like to see faster than f/2.8 and ring USM on lenses that are under $500 (the old "gold ring" lenses) -- but I think that with a few exceptions , like 50mm, these will be few and far between from Canon. 

I'm just fine with 2.8 for most lenses, if it means a really substantial price difference -- as long as the IQ at 2.8 is good, and I don't have to drop it to f/4 to get a sharp image, I can get what I need out of the lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 9, 2017)

Talys said:


> I know we would all like to see faster than f/2.8 and ring USM on lenses that are under $500 (the old "gold ring" lenses) -- but I think that with a few exceptions , like 50mm, these will be few and far between from Canon.



Disagree. I'm not expecting mindblowingly quick midgrade lens refreshes to happen, but 35-85mm FF primes are relatively inexpensive to go f/2 or faster provided you don't have Sigma Art resolution expectations.

We already got the old EF 35mm f/2 refreshed with IS and USM in 2012, and I expect a similar refresh treatment to the EF 50 f/1.4 USM and EF 85 f/1.8 USM before too long. They may end up going nano USM / focus by wire, but Canon won't nerf their max aperture or anything.

...they'll just withhold them from happening for too long. :

- A


----------



## scyrene (Apr 9, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> it's extremly hard to get this close to beetles or spiders, not to mention butterflies, unless they are dead.
> 
> 1. EF-S 250mm OR 300mm f/5.6 IS USM Macro (MFD must be between 0.75 and 1 meter) for beetles,



In my experience, beetles and spiders do not generally mind close approach. Butterflies, lizards, etc. obviously usually do, but I think you're being unduly harsh.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 9, 2017)

Nininini said:


> How hard is it to remember to not shoot in the direction of the sun? Shots against the sun are never going to be pleasing shots anyway, unless you like extreme light flaring and veiling.



Well everybody's different, but this is just bizarre to me. Plenty of great shots have light somewhere behind them, especially around sunrise and sunset.



Nininini said:


> I am a fan of UV filters, if I know I'm shooting in a dirty city with smog, or sand, since a large part what causes light veiling and contrast loss is particles on the lens. That stray light hitting particles and bouncing around inside the elements, is what causing the majority of the veiling / flaring / anomalies..in direct light. At least an UV filter does something more useful, keeping your lens clean, just toss your UV filter under the sink if it's dirty...don't try that with your lens. The filter itself might cause a puny amount of contrast loss if it's a cheap filter, but it beats getting your lens dirty.



The whole filter or no filter debate is a longstanding can of worms but I will say this: in those lenses that include it, the lens hood is free, whereas you have to buy a filter (and good filters can be expensive); a hood doesn't harm image quality (whereas a filter *can* in some circumstances, especially cheaper ones), and hoods are much less fragile - plastic or carbon fibre being less liable to shatter than glass. While a filter is better at preventing dirt reaching the lens's front element, a hood can keep most sources of dirt at bay under most circumstances. I also often stand my camera on end, lens down, which is fine with the hood attached but definitely not recommended if you're just using a filter with no hood.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 10, 2017)

Dfunk99 said:


> Canon bringing out this lens, when they Need to update their 50mm 1.4, also a 20mm 2.8 or faster & update their 28mm 1.8 to one with IS. Guess none of the above matter to them.



This is an old chart I made for EF primes, and though it's two years old, I'm pretty sure we haven't a new EF prime since I made this.

Key thing is this: those five lenses in the middle are 20-ish years old and sorely in need of a refresh, particularly the 50 and 85 as much more popular options with (especially the 50) some glaring and straightforward issues to fix.

But the 20 f/2.8, the 28 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 can take a number and get in line. As far as update priority goes, the EF 50 f/1.4 USM should be #1 with a bullet. 

- A


----------

