# EF-S or EF 35 f/1.8? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2011)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8124"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8124" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8124"></a></div>
<strong>Another 35mm?

</strong>An email not in english came in talking about a slower Ã‚ 35mm that would be launched in the near future.</p>
<p>The lens would be a 35mm f/1.8 with a lower build quality than an â€œLâ€ lens. However, I am unsure from the communication whether or not the lens would be an EF or EF-S mount.</p>
<p><strong>CRs Take

</strong>There has been a recent issue of 35 f/2 stock, however a lot of that can potentially be attributed to manufacturing challenges in Asia.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## JR (Dec 19, 2011)

Well I sure hope this does not take anything away from the rumored 35mm 1.4L II which I am craving for...There has been so few non L lens update in past years that this one seem odd...


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 19, 2011)

JR said:


> Well I sure hope this does not take anything away from the rumored 35mm 1.4L II which I am craving for...



Indeed!

35mm f/2 desperately needs a refreshment tho, seems (and sounds) pretty outdated now, without USM. Would also be great if it came with the hood.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

I've frequently predicted an EF-S 35mm f/1.8. I believe it will lack USM and have build quality and styling similar to the EF-S 18-55mm II and EF-S 55-250mm II, to keep it appealing to the broad consumer market (which, based on sales figures wants lenses <$250). I know folks here would really like USM and probably faster than f/1.8, but I don't see that happening. A 'cheap' prime that's 'normal' on APS-C is what we're likely to see, perhaps introduced alongside the T4i/650D in 1Q12.


----------



## foobar (Dec 19, 2011)

I really hope this is going to be an EF lens. Why? Because for an APS-C-only lens, it's just too long for what it's supposed to be.

A "true" normal for APS-C (based on the size of their current 18mp sensor) would be pretty much in the middle between 24mm and 28mm, so I'd rather like to see something affordable in that focal range (even if they were just updating the 28mm f/1.8 to be better at wider apertures).

However, this seems to be more about an ultra-cheap prime to compete directly with Nikon's AF-S 35mm f/1.8 (which btw. isn't that bad and also does have an ultrasonic motor), so I guess a crap-tastic EF(-S) 35mm f/1.8 is quite realistic.


----------



## Stuart (Dec 19, 2011)

foobar said:


> A "true" normal for APS-C (based on the size of their current 18mp sensor) would be pretty much in the middle between 24mm and 28mm,



Actually 31.25 would be a 50mm equiv on a 1.6 crop factor APS-c from canon.

But i love my fast nifty fifty, and a cheap 35/30 or even a preferred cheap plastic 28 f1.8 would be splendid for me - if its as sharp as the 50mm.


----------



## foobar (Dec 19, 2011)

Stuart said:


> foobar said:
> 
> 
> > A "true" normal for APS-C (based on the size of their current 18mp sensor) would be pretty much in the middle between 24mm and 28mm,
> ...



Correct, that's because a 50mm is already slightly longer than a "true" normal lens on FF, but a 35mm on APS-C would be even longer than that.


----------



## scottk (Dec 19, 2011)

I don't understand making it EF-S rather than EF. They can make affordable, EF primes, both the 50 1.8 and 501.4 prove that. Are there even any EF-S primes besides a macro? I just don't understand the advantage of it being EF-S. It cuts out some of their potential buyers.


----------



## whatta (Dec 19, 2011)

scottk said:


> I don't understand making it EF-S rather than EF. They can make affordable, EF primes, both the 50 1.8 and 501.4 prove that. Are there even any EF-S primes besides a macro? I just don't understand the advantage of it being EF-S. It cuts out some of their potential buyers.



I quote from myself:
because size does matter for some of us, compare efs 60 2.8 with ef 100 2.8.. probably a smaller lens can be cheaper as well for the same IQ. they say the af of 50 1.2 is slow because it is so heavy, the af can be faster as well and consume less battery.

but I do not have any issue with the size of the 28 1.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

whatta said:


> because size does matter for some of us, compare efs 60 2.8 with ef 100 2.8.. probably a smaller lens can be cheaper as well for the same IQ. they say the af of 50 1.2 is slow because it is so heavy, the af can be faster as well and consume less battery.



But in your example, you're comparing lenses of two different focal lengths. Yes, the 60mm on APS-C gives equivalent framing to the 100mm on FF, but they give different framing on APS-C. Compare the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro - they're approximately the same size. 

But a 35mm APS-C lens would benefit from size reduction of the short back focus as well as the reduced image circle.


----------



## jbooba (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> But in your example, you're comparing lenses of two different focal lengths. Yes, the 60mm on APS-C gives equivalent framing to the 100mm on FF, but they give different framing on APS-C. Compare the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro - they're approximately the same size.
> 
> But a 35mm APS-C lens would benefit from size reduction of the short back focus as well as the reduced image circle.



I really hope for an EF-S 35mm 1.8 wirh same build quality as my EF-S 60mm f2.8. sharpest lens i know.

JB


----------



## Chuchu (Dec 19, 2011)

I hope Canon upgrades the EF 35mm f/2. Add USM, more aperture blades to improve bokeh, and slightly wider aperture, and I'm in line to buy one.


----------



## dstppy (Dec 19, 2011)

I understand the need for inexpensive lenses, but they end up being cheap and not inexpensive :-\

I genuinely wish that they'd come up with a red ring/gold ring/silver ring standard and service the middle tier.

No USM? That seems silly.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

No IS either - that will stop a lot of users buying it :


----------



## whatta (Dec 19, 2011)

dstppy said:


> I genuinely wish that they'd come up with a red ring/gold ring/silver ring standard and service the middle tier.


otherwise they might service 3rd parties..


----------



## foobar (Dec 19, 2011)

scottk said:


> I don't understand making it EF-S rather than EF. They can make affordable, EF primes, both the 50 1.8 and 501.4 prove that.


Every focal length is different and 50mm in particular is a sweet spot where you can get great image quality with a relatively simple construction and a minimal amount of glass.

That's why a 50mm f/1.4 only costs a fraction of a 35mm f/1.4 for example.

An EF-S 35mm f/1.4 would be much more affordable than the EF-version because less glass is needed.
The effect is less dramatic on telephoto lenses (neuroanatomist has posted a detailed explanation of this in another thread IIRC).

The other thing you can always do to reduce costs is of course making the lens slower.


----------



## SnapHappy (Dec 19, 2011)

Long time lurker, first time poster here.

I don't understand the 35mm range on an APSc only camera lens so I believe this will be for both EFs and EF mounts. I have an APSc cam and find even a 35mm tight. Now on a FF cam it would be great but strictly speaking from an APSc point of view I don't like it as much as say the 28mm or 30mm view. 

Now if they wanted to make this an EFs only lens then a 30mm 1.8 would be a real sweetheart of a lens for crop users.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 19, 2011)

The 35 f/1.8 may not be EF-S. If Canon wants to make a "Standard" APS-C prime, it will be 30 f/1.8 to give us the angle of 48mm on a FF.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

A lot of landscapers use ff (5DII) - so why make a APS-C?. 35mm is nice on a ff - which is where my 17-40L often ends up.


----------

