# Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 14, 2017)

```
<p>Canon will announce an EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM on April 5, 2017. What we find unique about this announcement is the “M” in the lens description. We’re not sure what that means…</p>
<p><strong>Here are a couple of ideas off the top of my head:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Macro mode?</li>
<li>EOS M compatible?</li>
<li>Leica made it?</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Here are the best reader ideas:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>From <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32180.msg655729#msg655729">GHPhotography</a> “<em>Perhaps M is a designator for macro mode with the integrated LED lights from the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS</em>“</li>
</ul>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>Availability and pricing are not known at this time, but we don’t have long to wait.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

THe M stands for meh


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I'd love to hear how many folks get excited about a 56mm, not incredibly fast equivalent. Canon must believe that there are quite a few.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



Canon Rumors said:


> <ul>
> <li>Macro mode?</li>
> <li>EOS M compatible?</li>
> <li>Leica made it?</li>
> </ul>



Macro mode? No - it'd have Macro in the name as per all other macro lenses. Also Macro isn't a 'new' feature for EF-S

EOS M compatible? Arent they all with a suitable adaptor?

I wonder if the M is actually an indication of quality, ie the EF-S version of an 'L' lens.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I thought it will be a wideangle lens. 35mm for APS-C is surely not considered wideangle, that's a normal prime! 

The M doesn't mean macro I think, it must be something else and new. I'm a bit disappointed about the focal lenght as I thought it would be somewhere around 10-18mm.

I guess I have to order the Samyang 10mm 2.8 again lol. It's OK.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

If M = macro, and it's 2:1, I'd like one for my 80D. If it's 1:1 or less magnification, I agree with jolyonralph; meh.


----------



## Warren21 (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

As someone who currently only has APS-C bodies, and wants a 35mm... Even *I* am not excited by this! I'd rather save a bit longer and get the full-frame compatible EF 35 2.0 IS or the 1.4L (version I's can be found for good prices!)

As a beginner lens, sure, go for it... Which is what it seems Canon thinks of EF-S mount. I feel like Canon will never do another serious EF-S lens like the 17-55 2.8.


----------



## midluk (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Perhaps it is Macro and M compatible. Like some integrated macro tube that can be used for macro on normal DSLR and to get the back focus right on EOS M. They would just have to find a way to make this mountable on both EF-S and EF-M mount.
But I think it is something else really special. Because neither the focal length nor the aperture are special at all. I would have expected the lens to be wider than 17mm to provide something not covered by the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.


----------



## GHPhotography (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Perhaps M is a designator for macro mode with the integrated LED lights from the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS? This would certainly be a new feature that no other EF-S lenses had and would make it much more interesting for some.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M for metal mount and housing perhaps?

M for FTM override, don't know if this would be a first for EF-S lenses?

M for "must have" because of this M noone knows what it will be.

Frank


----------



## Talys (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Oh, oh, I know -- "Manual focus that won't annoy me" 


If it's optically excellent like the 1.8STM and efs 10-22, and the price is "cheap", I'll buy it. I like 35mm on crop and the lens will probably be super thin. I mean, not earth shattering stuff here, but, why not?


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



GHPhotography said:


> Perhaps M is a designator for macro mode with the integrated LED lights from the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS? This would certainly be a new feature that no other EF-S lenses had and would make it much more interesting for some.



Why invent just another adaptor just for one lens?
They could ship it together with the EOS-M Adapter, when removed it is just a EF-S lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Standard prime FL and f/2.8 screams macro to me. I'd go +1 on the integral macro lights suggestion.

No idea why it's being branded 'M' though -- no other lens gets that designation. They just say 'Macro'.

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

So, the plot thickens. At f/2.8 this is not the fast normal prime everybody hoped for. I guess the closest analogue to this lens in the existing EF selection is the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM - but hopefully this one will be cheaper! There must be some niche Canon is betting on that is not served by the 40mm f/2.8 STM or the 35mm f/2 IS USM - and that mysterious "M" probably has something to do with it. With IS STM, video is one obvious guess.


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



Talys said:


> Oh, oh, I know -- "Manual focus that won't annoy me"
> 
> 
> If it's optically excellent like the 1.8STM and efs 10-22, and the price is "cheap", I'll buy it. I like 35mm on crop and the lens will probably be super thin. I mean, not earth shattering stuff here, but, why not?



You'll run into a great deal of interference championing the 50 1.8 and the 10-22 as optically excellent. I would on the other hand just hope it's compact and on par optically with the 24 ef-s and the FF 40. 

I would bet the M designation is a non 1:1 Macro. What that ratio might be is anyone's guess.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



jolyonralph said:


> The M stands for meh


Have to admit, I agree. Can't understand why Canon would introduce a 56mm equivalent. Between the 24mm EF-S and this one, it's as though someone forgot to tell Canon's lens design department that there is a 1.6 crop factor on EF-S lenses. 

A true 24mm equivalent (15mm) would have been interesting. I can't see any circumstance where I would want this lens.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M. -- Comes with an M-Mount adapter.


----------



## Nado (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M for "Master" with out the Sony G part.....but then we know it would be a meh lens...lol


----------



## FECHariot (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Are you kidding me, another slow prime in a focal length already covered by a 17-55?


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Well I thought the lens would be wider for sure. While I love and use 35mm on APS-C. I can still understand why many would rather it been a 30mm. That said. 35mm Macro??????? Seriously??? I have been using a 50mm Macro for some time now and would rather have something 90mm or longer as a macro. Just simply to get really close the lens will dang near touch what ever it is your taking a photo of. Coins, stamps, ya finger.. Whatever.. Its to close. Hard to get light on what ever your photoing even using a macro ring light. 35mm is going to be even worse.. Guess the M does mean "meh"...

I personally would have loved to see a 18 or 20mm f/2.8 STM..


----------



## Talys (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



slclick said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, oh, I know -- "Manual focus that won't annoy me"
> ...



Typo.. I meant, 10-18, sorry. No idea why I said 22. 

I think 50 1.8 and 10-18 provide excellent images in terms of sharpness and CA (the two things most important to me) for their price. The lack or ring USM kind of kills it for me, but these are tiny light lenses to throw in the bag just in case I need them, and supplement the 24-70/4 that's usually on my 80D. 

I own a 17-55/2.8, but I m not thrilled with IQ at 2.8 35mm.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



slclick said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, oh, I know -- "Manual focus that won't annoy me"
> ...



The 50mmSTM may not be fantastic wide open, but at f5.6 you'd be hard pressed to find any lens with significantly better IQ.
(I'm comparing it with the Sigma 50mm Art, the difference is so minuscule that practically no-one would be able to differentiate between images taken with either lens at that aperture.) 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5


----------



## hubie (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M for Microlensarray for post focusing ;D


----------



## Talys (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



9VIII said:


> The 50mmSTM may not be fantastic wide open, but at f5.6 you'd be hard pressed to find any lens with significantly better IQ.
> (I'm comparing it with the Sigma 50mm Art, the difference is so minuscule that practically no-one would be able to differentiate between images taken with either lens at that aperture.)
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5



Yeah, if they threw ring USM onto it, I would happily pay 2-3x the price. I use it over my 1.4 because CA is worse on the 1.4, and also, my 1.4 has a focus ring that keeps sticking/dying, requiring me to disassemble and fiddle with it. I would love a 1.2L, but can't justify it, and anyways, I don't think I'd lug it around all the time.

The 10-18 gives me pictures that I'm perfectly happy with. I know it's not a 16-35/2.8 on FF, but I don't have a FF (yet... waiting on 6DII), and it's a fraction of the cost and is so small and light that I don't mind having it in my bag all the time, even if I have no plans on using it. 

I think the EFS35/2.8 could be the same thing, if it's light enough, and has IQ that's good enough -- the bar for me to buy it is sharper and less CA than a 17-55 at 35mm wide open, which I don't think is a super high bar for a prime, and considering that 17-55 isn't that spectacular in IQ at 2.8.


----------



## goldenhusky (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I was hoping for a lens between 10-15mm. Could this be the reversible mount lens for EF-M and EF-S? The one patented here http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-reversible-mount-lens/ regardless I am little underwhelmed by EF-S 35mm


----------



## keithcooper (Mar 14, 2017)

*'M' - not quite 'L'*

Pity - I was hoping for a wide angle lens...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

The M had better be short for _Magical_, because an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM:


Has USM
Has FTM _mechanical_ focusing (not focus by wire, which we'd presume this new one would be)
Is a stop faster
Is very well built
Is ready to go on a FF rig should the user upgrade to FF someday
Can be had for about $400 as a refurb

So this new one had either be much cheaper, much smaller, or have a very innovative new feature.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M = Movie or Motion

Silent and effective IS for video mode.


That is my guess.


----------



## andrei1989 (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

i'm still interested...i'm just not super excited anymore...like most of the people here...
except if it's a true macro, then i'd actually want one


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I do like the idea of it being a reversible lens. But having EF-S and EF-M mounts makes no sense to anyone, it'd be EF-S mounts on both sides giving you a standard 35mm f/2.8 one way round and a pretty serious macro capability the other way round would be interesting to say the least. 

Although if this is really what it was I'd have used the letter 'R' (for reversible) rather than generate this ridiculous confusion between this and EF-M lenses. Similarly if it is for Macro I'd have expected them to include 'Macro' in the title as they have with every other macro lens.


So although I'd like it to be reversible my money is still on 'M' being the new EF-S equivalent of an 'L' lens, with better optics and build quality. In which case the confusion with EF-M lenses is still ridiculous!


----------



## scrup (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M for miniature line.

These are small lenses for small bodies.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

There has to be some reason to buy an "EF-S 35mm F2.8 IS", rather than the 40 pancake.

Just because of Image Stabilizer? ???
Even more compact? :
Even cheaper? 
Macro mode? 8)
All of the above? :-X


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> There has to be some reason to buy an "EF-S 35mm F2.8 IS", rather than the 40 pancake.
> 
> Just because of Image Stabilizer? ???
> Even more compact? :
> ...



IS

Love your emoticons ! Could hardly be smaller or cheaper !


----------



## JMZawodny (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M is one better than L. All new lenses will be part of the new M series and everyone will dump their Red line lenses for the new Blue line M-series.


----------



## midluk (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



JMZawodny said:


> M is one better than L. All new lenses will be part of the new M series and everyone will dump their Red line lenses for the new Blue line M-series.


But just for EF-S. For FF there will be new 'N' lenses which are an additional one better and have a pink ring.


----------



## Kethean (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I think I'm going to go with Macro, maybe with lights. I mean, Nikon has had one for years...

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-micro-nikkor-40mm-f%252f2.8g.html


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



slclick said:


> I'd love to hear how many folks get excited about a 56mm, not incredibly fast equivalent. Canon must believe that there are quite a few.



I bought a new 20D and a new Elan 7n on the same day, back in the mid-00s. I guess that qualifies as me a long time XXD user.

I don't like a 56mm lens on a FullFrameFilm camera, so the last thing I want is a 56mm FullFrame FOV (FFFOV) EF-S prime.

What I wanted was an EF-S prime *w-i-d-e-r* than the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM (a slightly short normal FFFOV). A 12mm (19mm FFFOV) or a 17mm (27mm FFFOV) would have been useful. A Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 is a great wide prime, sadly only available in Sony E-mount or Fuji X-mount.

Disapointed, once again by Canon—why am I no't surprised


----------



## Cory (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Might have got this if I didn't already have a 24 STM and Sigma 35 Art so this makes a great case for going with a 40mm STM lens to top off my travel set-up. Might order that immediately.


----------



## photonius (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

The reversible lens mount patent from a few months gives the most likely explanation.
It's a normal 35mm lens when used in the "normal" orientation.
Then you invert the lens, and it's a reverse mounted (EF-S) 35 mm lens that works for macro.
Was a very common method in old manual lens film days to get some macro with a 50mm lens by
screwing a mount adapter into the front filter thread and reverse mounting it.

35mm sounds like a good focal length to do this, and the adapter is right integrated into the lens, so
it's "M" Macro, and novel. Just needs the electronic contacts in the front that will be covered by some removable ring/hood-like thing. with 35mm, it should give 1:1 magnification, or even a bit more. Autofocus range in M mode will of course be limited.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



photonius said:


> The reversible lens mount patent from a few months gives the most likely explanation.
> It's a normal 35mm lens when used in the "normal" orientation.
> Then you invert the lens, and it's a reverse mounted (EF-S) 35 mm lens that works for macro.
> Was a very common method in old manual lens film days to get some macro with a 50mm lens by
> ...


Makes sense.
It could just be a replacement for the EF-S 60mm.


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

If M stands for Macro it should have at least 2:1 minimum magnification ration and/or 30 cm or longer minimum focusing distance to make it useable. 
If M means that is supports *real* "Full Time Manual" focusing despite of having STM motor it would be great news. 
Other meanings of M don't interest me at all.


----------



## KristinnK (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> There has to be some reason to buy an "EF-S 35mm F2.8 IS", rather than the 40 pancake.



The 40mm STM is a full-frame lens. This means a 2.5x larger image circle, meaning a lot more glass. This lens should cost 50 dollars or something unless the "M" implies some seriously expensive shit. Basically it will be a 'throw in with the Rebel kit' 56mm f4.5 full-frame equivalent lens.

That'll teach those chumps not to use Canon crop bodies. Damn peasants.


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Camon CR guy, 35mm is not wide angle on aps-c....


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



vangelismm said:


> Camon CR guy, 35mm is not wide angle on aps-c....



So we can only hope something was lost in translation and it's a 22? If so, it would mean the M is for Macro or how else would it differentiate from the ef-s 24? Yet, who would want a Macro that wide? All in all, there is no win here.


----------



## larjon (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



jolyonralph said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <ul>
> ...



If the lens is called EF-S 35mm f/2.8M IS STM, i.e. no space between 2.8 and M, I'll also go for Luxury.


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



larjon said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



"I'm strictly shooting with Muxury glass"


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

if L is for Luxury M could well be for 'Master'.

Or Mediocre


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



jolyonralph said:


> if L is for Luxury M could well be for 'Master'.
> 
> Or Mediocre



Could M just be their moniker for illuminated macro lenses, like the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM? (I know they didn't brand it as such last time, but perhaps people liked it and Canon wants to push the idea more broadly?)

Might this be a similar 1:2 Macro lens for EF-S, sort of like how the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is close-but-not-quite-the-same as the EF-M 22mm f/2?

- A


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



vangelismm said:


> Camon CR guy, 35mm is not wide angle on aps-c....



35MM is _not w-i-d-e _on Full Frame. 35mm is at the long end of _w-i-d-e_ on medium format.


----------



## picture-maker (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

EF-S lenses of 22mm, 31mm and 56mm. Would be approximately equivalent to 35mm, 50mm and 90mm EF lenses on a full frame camera.

Because of this. The latest rumours don’t seem to make much sense.

First of all we were told the new lens would be a wide angle EF-S prime lens. That means it would be less than 31mm.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about crop size lenses, and full frame lenses. So has someone misunderstood the message? Was 35mm equivalentt said? And f2.8? 

Who wants to buy a 56mm f2.8 lens? If you were using full frame what use would that be? 

The M mentioned could stand for EF-SM 22mm f2.0 STM. That makes far more sense. Canon have all main components already and they are used to build the EF-M 22mm f2.0 STM, and that would be what the M stands for. I read within the last two years there was a patent for an EF-S 22mm f2.0 STM registered.

That would be an inexpensive way to produce an excellent new lens, and surely the market for this lens would be far greater than the market for newly designed 56mm f2.8 macro lens.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 14, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Well now I'm all confused. The "unique feature" is back to a total mystery.

Could it be a 1:2 macro? It'd have a roughly-equivalent FOV to the old EF 50 macro (@ahsanford's favorite 50 ).


----------



## Azathoth (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

My hopes of a cheap UWA prime lens were crushed! 

Seriously isn't Canon already full of cheap prime lenses between 24 and 50 mm ?? Yawn...
Wake me up when they release something <= 18 mm....zZZzzzzzzZZ...


----------



## Tom W (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Reading what's been written so far, the lens makes little sense. Now, if it were a 35/2.8 EF-M pancake lens, then it might be sensible (although I would prefer an f/2 if possible). A series of small EF-M primes to go with the 22/2 would be nice.


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



ahsanford said:


> Standard prime FL and f/2.8 screams macro to me. I'd go +1 on the integral macro lights suggestion.
> 
> No idea why it's being branded 'M' though -- no other lens gets that designation. They just say 'Macro'.
> 
> - A



Maybe the CR guy's spy inside Canon was discovererd and killed just as he was trying to tell CR about the lens, and he got cut off at the "M" in "Macro"....


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



ScottyP said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Standard prime FL and f/2.8 screams macro to me. I'd go +1 on the integral macro lights suggestion.
> ...



Well it doesn't stand for 'M'artyr. Look at all the trouble it stirred up here!


----------



## Talys (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



LonelyBoy said:


> Well now I'm all confused. The "unique feature" is back to a total mystery.
> 
> Could it be a 1:2 macro? It'd have a roughly-equivalent FOV to the old EF 50 macro (@ahsanford's favorite 50 ).



Soooo...

Magical -- sorry, this word was trademarked by Apple  Only iPhones are allowed to be Magical now.
Mediocre and Meh -- nope, that's not unique, LOL.
Macro -- also, not unique. Although, uniqueness could be the letter M in the name, rather than a unique _feature_
Mechanical -- definitely not unique in or to EFS.
EF-M compatible -- Maybe. Could be, "supports special, tiny EF-M adapter" -- as in Multiple Mount?

How about...
Mirrored -- like a reflecting telescope? But that wouldn't make sense at 35mm. It would be cool if Canon made one for like, 500mm+!
Micro -- Really small/thin/light?
Mega -- Surprise: It's REALLY BIG!
More Alphabet Soup -- The surprise is a bonus letter that means nothing at all!
More wide?
More better??
More money???

Maddening!!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



ScottyP said:


> Maybe the CR guy's spy inside Canon was discovererd and killed just as he was trying to tell CR about the lens, and he got cut off at the "M" in "Macro"....



That's like the Castle of Aaaaagh...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfowXTXOfU&feature=youtu.be&t=43s

- A


----------



## Woody (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

f/2.8 is too slow!!!!


----------



## The Supplanter (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Well, glad I'm switching to full frame as soon as the 6DII comes out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



photonius said:


> The reversible lens mount patent from a few months gives the most likely explanation.
> It's a normal 35mm lens when used in the "normal" orientation.
> Then you invert the lens, and it's a reverse mounted (EF-S) 35 mm lens that works for macro.
> Was a very common method in old manual lens film days to get some macro with a 50mm lens by
> ...



Well, I was thinking M for monochrome, a lens that doesn't transmit color. But your suggestion makes much, much more sense.


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



neuroanatomist said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > The reversible lens mount patent from a few months gives the most likely explanation.
> ...



Why oh why would I seriously doubt that an EF-S lens would all of a sudden have a bizarre combination of vintage lens stylings and advanced electronics? Wrong segment. I'm banking on the M designation being a typo in 3....2....1...


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

If it is a macro lens, then I wouldnt mind purchasing it to complement my longer macro lenses. There are times when longer macro lens is too long especially while shooting indoors and flowers.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Expecting 35mm equivalent fov lens. Instead we are getting 35mm lens. It is stop slower than 35mm FF lens. Can we expect price to be around $199?


----------



## EduPortas (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Just my 2c:

"M" should be related to "movie" to try to differentiate itself from the already great 35mm F2.0 IS.

Ideally, it would take advantage of the Power Zoom module. I'm not sure how do, since it is not a zoom.

Maybe better for rack focusing, like in the movies?

The other option, as someone said, would be "mechanical" as in mechanical aperture. Again, that would

help lots of moviemakers who desire more creative control.

We'll see.


----------



## sanj (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



jolyonralph said:


> THe M stands for meh



;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



Woody said:


> f/2.8 is too slow!!!!



For a 35mm APS-C lens, that's true! A bit on the slow side, especially when looking at the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 zoom (heavy lens, but still...). 

As for the focal lenght; even on FF, 35mm is barely considered a wideangle...

Btw. all suggestions about it being a macro are interesting I agree, but didn't the CR guy mention at some point that the new prime won't be a specialty lens like a macro? That's why I thought it ought to be something else. And not only because of that, but also because if it was a macro-capable lens, Canon always puts the "macro" designation in the product name tag - and not something like "M".


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

As a video oriented lens:

What about "M" for Microphone - small lens with two condensor microphone capsules for superior sound quality? - Transmission of the audio data via BlueTooth?


----------



## hne (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M as in Movie focus? Turn the ring to select movie mode autofocus speed.

M as in Manual aperture: a separate ring on the lens that mirrors the function of the thumb wheel of larger bodies?


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



mb66energy said:


> As a video oriented lens:
> 
> What about "M" for Microphone - small lens with two condensor microphone capsules for superior sound quality? - Transmission of the audio data via BlueTooth?



LOL! Made my day ;D

Yeah who knows...


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Clearly M stands for Mystery


----------



## benkam (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I'm interested. 

For APS-C users like me, it could be that prime on your camera most of the time, with the 55-250 and 10-18 zooms in the bag for focal lengths up and below for a capable, budget/value system. Sure, F2 or 1.4 would've been nice but 2.8 is fine. 

I like little primes and not being super fast would hopefully keep down its size. This could replace swapping between the 24 STM and 50 STM, which also happen to both not be stabilized.

I'm guessing M for macro-lite with a switch for 0.7X max magnification like on the 24-70 f4 IS but they're not spelling out Macro to deflect comparison with the EF-M 28mm Macro IS with its built-in light and 1.2X "super macro" mode.


----------



## frankos72 (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I'm guessing it might stand for motorized? Like it has a power zoom built in?


----------



## vau (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Dead easy.

M for MORE COWBELL!


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



frankos72 said:


> I'm guessing it might stand for motorized? Like it has a power zoom built in?



That's probably it. Power zoom in a prime would be novel indeed!


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Y'know what, "M" actually stands for "_Meooow_!", because it was especially designed for Don Haines to make even better cat pictures. The lens will be so super-plushy and extremely silent, cats will love it! 

Also, you can use the lens as a (kind of) emergency cat-food-bowl with just one click (it will automatically extend for this purpose). Very useful indeed, especially when you're out in the field, carrying a cat with you in the backpack.


----------



## PeterT (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

So it should be 35mm 2.8 IS and "M"ysterious.

There are exactly zero nice (in IQ wide open) wide angle (22mm or less) reasonable fast (f/2 or f/1.8 ) AF primes optimized for APS-C (in weight, size and price).
But Canon releases instead a 35mm lens with some Mysterious specialty (even if there is a 35mm f/2 IS which is suitable enough for APS-C in IQ, aperture, size, price).
I cannot imagine that there would be a smaller market for the above mentioned wide angle lens(es) than for a 35mm f/2.8 IS regardless what stands M for.
So they keep "protecting" their full frame bodies and lenses against APS-C. Even if this strategy will force some users (like me, who never considered going FF because of size, weight and price) to leave Canon completely or stop buying anything new from Canon.

So what are the options for users like me (wanting nice not too big primes for APS-C) who do not want to go full frame?
Fuji? Sony? Olympus/Panasonic?
But, I like OVF... so no option? Just to stay with my old gear not investing to anything new?


----------



## vscd (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

M for "monochrome". There will be a color-cutting-filter inside. Good thing: no CAs 

But fun aside.. maybe it's really for *movie*, like manual primes this can be a sign for a* stepless aperture*.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

This will tempt me to abandon my Sigma 30mm F1.4.......NOT!


----------



## hne (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



PeterT said:


> So it should be 35mm 2.8 IS and "M"ysterious.
> 
> There are exactly zero nice (in IQ wide open) wide angle (22mm or less) reasonable fast (f/2 or f/1.8 ) AF primes optimized for APS-C (in weight, size and price).
> But Canon releases instead a 35mm lens with some Mysterious specialty (even if there is a 35mm f/2 IS which is suitable enough for APS-C in IQ, aperture, size, price).
> ...



Nikon DX AF-S 35mmm 1:1.8 G costs $200, is reasonably small, optimized for APS-C and works with cameras with OVF.


----------



## PeterT (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



hne said:


> PeterT said:
> 
> 
> > There are exactly zero nice (in IQ wide open) wide angle (22mm or less) reasonable fast (f/2 or f/1.8 ) AF primes optimized for APS-C (in weight, size and price).
> ...



Unfortunately, it is not in the FL interval I was talking about (less than 22mm, i.e. ideally one 22mm, one 15mm and maybe one 10 or 12mm).
35mm can be easily covered on Canon, too.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

If M stands for "Marco" "Macro" I suppose this looks like they are trying to port the success of the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM into the EF-S world. 

Although I like the thought of this lens in the EOS M world my conclusion here would be 


jolyonralph said:


> THe M stands for meh


+1
For "standard" lenses I'd prefer a longer FL for macro and 35 mm are something so boring in EF-S as the 40/2.8 pancake already exists.

The only thing interesting could be if this was a macro with HIS as the EF-M Macro is and if it was really small.


I would have been more interested in a 18 to 15 mm EF-S pancake, if that optical formula was possible with IQ comparable to the other pancakes.


----------



## picture-maker (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

There were no comments when I posted this earlier. May be no-one was interested, so here it is again.

EF-S lenses of 22mm, 31mm and 56mm. Would be approximately equivalent to 35mm, 50mm and 90mm EF lenses on a full frame camera.

Because of this. The latest rumours don’t seem to make much sense.

First of all we were told the new lens would be a wide angle EF-S prime lens. That means it would be less than 31mm.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about crop size lenses, and full frame lenses. So has someone misunderstood the message? Was 35mm equivalentt said? And f2.8? 

Who wants to buy a 56mm f2.8 lens? If you were using full frame what use would that be? 

The M mentioned could stand for EF-SM 22mm f2.0 STM. That makes far more sense. Canon have all main components already and they are used to build the EF-M 22mm f2.0 STM, and that would be what the M stands for. I read within the last two years there was a patent for an EF-S 22mm f2.0 STM registered.

That would be an inexpensive way to produce an excellent new lens, and surely the market for this lens would be far greater than the market for newly designed 56mm f2.8 macro lens. 

The new lens must be in production by now if it's to be launched on 5 April so all the speculation makes no difference really. It will be what it will be.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



PeterT said:


> So it should be 35mm 2.8 IS and "M"ysterious.
> 
> There are exactly zero nice (in IQ wide open) wide angle (22mm or less) reasonable fast (f/2 or f/1.8 ) AF primes optimized for APS-C (in weight, size and price).
> But Canon releases instead a 35mm lens with some Mysterious specialty (even if there is a 35mm f/2 IS which is suitable enough for APS-C in IQ, aperture, size, price).
> ...



Sorry, but this is where we get back to sales talk. Because you're inferring that they're releasing a product few people will buy, due to some diabolical plan to deny customers what they really want, or something. But if there's one thing Canon knows how to do, it's sell lots of cameras and lenses. So I suspect that whatever this lens is, it's aimed at a gap in the market that they have identified. I've seen so many Canon products released that have been met with muted reactions on here or even outright hostility, but have sold well from what we can tell, and earned grudging respect after a while.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



photonius said:


> The reversible lens mount patent from a few months gives the most likely explanation.
> It's a normal 35mm lens when used in the "normal" orientation.
> Then you invert the lens, and it's a reverse mounted (EF-S) 35 mm lens that works for macro.
> Was a very common method in old manual lens film days to get some macro with a 50mm lens by
> ...



Novel notion! If this is the case, and it's sharp, I'll buy it! An ideal backpacking lens for one who photo's wildflowers.


----------



## grainier (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

I just don't get it. Nikon's been selling its DX 35/1.8 for almost 10 years now and Canon still seems to think that its customers don't need a bargain-priced 50mm equivalent for crop.


----------



## Markintosh (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Maybe M is for motorized? I remember Canon has PZ-E1 Power Zoom Adapter.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

The clue from the past said it was a feature that's not yet been seen in an EF-S lens, hence we are assuming the feature HAS been seen before in previous EF (or EF-M?) lens.

So the LED light thing makes sense somewhat. As does a movie specific lens (EF Cine lenses). But not so much the reversible mount.

I think the M probably stands for Manfrotto, and it will be the world's first pancake-lens with a tripod mount.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



Markintosh said:


> Maybe M is for motorized? I remember Canon has PZ-E1 Power Zoom Adapter.



Not quite as much need for a power zoom on a prime lens


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*

Hmmm, f/2.8 is disappointingly too slow IMO. One of the reasons to choose primes over zooms is often the faster aperture. Especially being a crop only lens, I can't imagine much glass or too large of a size to get f/2 or even faster.

As for "M" for macro. The EF-S prime lineup is lacking, why come out with another macro lens when the EF-S 60mm has that area covered and is quite excellent as well.

Until we know more, this one is a bit of a head scratcher.


----------



## benkam (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



picture-maker said:


> There is a lot of misunderstanding about crop size lenses, and full frame lenses. So has someone misunderstood the message? Was 35mm equivalentt said? And f2.8?
> 
> Who wants to buy a 56mm f2.8 lens? If you were using full frame what use would that be?



Let's stop obsessing over the small difference between 56mm and 50mm. And let’s not pretend like a 35mm prime on a crop body is unheard of. People have been using EF lenses like the 35 f2 IS (and non-IS before it) and even 35L, and the Sigma/Tamron FF 35s, on crop bodies.

An EF-S and stabilized 35 will be conceivably smaller than the faster, fatter 35 f2 IS or Sigma’s non-stabilized 30 1.4 for APS-C. If Canon price this reasonably and keep it small because it’s a stop slower, I appreciate having the choice of this lens with the specs the rumor currently suggests.


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



benkam said:


> picture-maker said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lot of misunderstanding about crop size lenses, and full frame lenses. So has someone misunderstood the message? Was 35mm equivalentt said? And f2.8?
> ...



Sigma 30mm 1.4, now you did the canon lens became even more boring.


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



vangelismm said:


> benkam said:
> 
> 
> > picture-maker said:
> ...



The sigma is a more reasonable focal length, this 56 equivalent still leaves me smh


----------



## benkam (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



vangelismm said:


> benkam said:
> 
> 
> > picture-maker said:
> ...



Why do lenses have to be the same? If people want the Sigma 30 1.4, then they can get it. But it's not stabilized.

This is like the choice between Canon's own 28mm f1.8 non-IS and their 28 2.8 IS, where they each swap either a wider max aperture or stabilization as they both keep to certain price and size points. One lens would be preferred by one type of user, the other by another.


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



benkam said:


> vangelismm said:
> 
> 
> > benkam said:
> ...



And with the 28's, one is sharp and one is well...not sharp and full of CA.


----------



## hne (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



PeterT said:


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



Ah. Right. My bad. Yeah, then you're probably looking at either big/heavy/expensive lenses or Fuji/u43
I agree with you. Something similar to the 301g heavy Fuji XF 23/1.4 mechanical masterpiece would be nice to have on a Canon crop body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



Maximilian said:


> If M stands for "Marco"



Then the next lens will be designated P for "Polo"?


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



neuroanatomist said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > If M stands for "Marco"
> ...


Why not? Bet let's go further! There could be an EF-S 60mm f/2.8*F* for *F*lowers, an EF-S 300mm f/2.8*B* for *B*eetles, an EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8-4*S* and an EF-S 10-18mm f/2.8*S* for land*S*capes, an EF-S ##mm f/1.4*A* for *A*stro photography and an EF-S 55-300mm f/4*W* for *W*ildlife.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



benkam said:


> Let's stop obsessing over the small difference between 56mm and 50mm. And let’s not pretend like a 35mm prime on a crop body is unheard of. People have been using EF lenses like the 35 f2 IS (and non-IS before it) and even 35L, and the Sigma/Tamron FF 35s, on crop bodies.
> 
> An EF-S and stabilized 35 will be conceivably smaller than the faster, fatter 35 f2 IS or Sigma’s non-stabilized 30 1.4 for APS-C. If Canon price this reasonably and keep it small because it’s a stop slower, I appreciate having the choice of this lens with the specs the rumor currently suggests.




I really do not understand why someone is getting so torn up over the focal length. Its one thing to prefer and another to have a meltdown about it. 30mm or 35mm Who care, take a half step backwards or forwards.. Fixed..

I use the 35mm f/2 on my 80D almost daily. Its a fantastic lens. But its still pricey, I think I paid around $600 USD for mine from Canon back last November. Its well worth it IMHO, but for APS-C shooters on a budget, its just out of their price range. So a cheaper and lighter f/2.8 using STM (also cheaper) and priced around $300 bucks would be a big deal to some. Add in Macro (or Meth, were not sure what M means yet) and it could be a good selling lens. I have many viewers of my channel that would love an affordable 35mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



SkynetTX said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



Perhaps you missed my point. I suggest you jump into a swimming pool with some friends...


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



neuroanatomist said:


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



'H' for housing


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



ExodistPhotography said:


> I really do not understand why someone is getting so torn up over the focal length. Its one thing to prefer and another to have a meltdown about it. 30mm or 35mm Who care, take a half step backwards or forwards.. Fixed..



Good its work for you. Let us know when you buy yours 35mm 2.8 IS M.


----------



## mrzero (Mar 15, 2017)

This is so disappointing. I understand the desire to fill a slot between the inexpensive 40mm 2.8 pancake and the mid-range 35mm 2.0 IS, but I don't understand prioritizing that over the *complete lack* of wide angle primes. There are no reasonably-priced, current, fast, autofocus prime lenses for EF-S wider than 20mm (and "current" is a stretch there). A Canon branded, autofocus, 2.8 prime, no IS, anywhere from 10 to 15mm, and reasonably priced would be a huge hit on EF-S. Ideally, they'd have a 10mm AND a 15mm, hitting 16mm and 24mm equivalent spots.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



SkynetTX said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...


This list of you is wonderful. I would only make small changes:

EF-S 80mm F2.8 Macro IS Flowers
EF-S 300mm F5.6 Macro IS Beetles
EF-S 15-45mm F2.8 IS landScapes
EF-S 8-16mm F4-5.6 IS landScapes
EF-S 12mm F1.4 Astro
EF-S 100-350mm F4-5.6 IS Wildlife


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2017)

Oh snap, title change! It's a CR3 now. So it's a 35mm crop lens for sure.

I could not find a non stock photo of a son being consoled by his father to CR3-meme, so you just get my normal CR3 meme today.

- A


----------



## magarity (Mar 15, 2017)

Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 15, 2017)

magarity said:


> Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?


Considering that there are lenses like Samyang 16mm F2, Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 and Tokina 14-20mm F2, it is perfectly possible. But it looks like the glass economy is quite small in EF-S lenses wider than 24mm, and Canon prefers to make them compatible with full frame at once.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



neuroanatomist said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > If M stands for "Marco"
> ...


You got me  
Keep typing errors for yourself


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



slclick said:


> And with the 28's, one is sharp and one is well...not sharp and full of CA.



I'll respectfully disagree. The interwebs loves to throw the 28mm f/1.8 under the bus but it isn't a bad lens by any stretch. Sure if you pixel peep f/1.8 can be a bit soft but it's amazing how much better it is at f/2 and f/2.2. Throw in the small form factor, light weight, USM, internal focusing, and it is a nice little lens for crop or full frame.


----------



## neonlight (Mar 15, 2017)

Well ... f/2.8 is too slow for a standard prime. Must be a macro. My twopenn'orth is on a macro you can stick on backwards. And probably get 1:2 at least (this way round = 2x life size BTW. I use subject:image ratio else it would be 0.5!!!)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2017)

magarity said:


> Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?



It's entirely a company decision. They could make huge pickle jar lenses for EF-S if they wanted to.

- A


----------



## funkboy (Mar 15, 2017)

my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is better 

Hopefully since this is EF-S & f/2.8 it'll be nice & small (please let it be a pancake , & nice & cheap...


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 15, 2017)

I hate to say it, but I think this is just as likely to be a lens with some kind of image softening effect as anything.

Fuji actually went out of their way to release a 56mm f1.2 APD, the primary feature of the lens is a softer image.
Edit: I almost forgot the Canon 135mm Soft Focus lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx)
Not to mention the small resurgence of optically poor but classic lenses.

Given that women taking selfies is still one of the primary demographics of consumer level SLR bodies...

Maybe this is a "Makeup" focused lens designed to smooth out the wrinkles in your face.
Chances are it would actually be a pretty solid marketing tactic.


----------



## Jopa (Mar 15, 2017)

"M" is for "mufakin' cool". Just my 5c.


----------



## scrup (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



Luds34 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > And with the 28's, one is sharp and one is well...not sharp and full of CA.
> ...



I owned the 28 1.8, paid a good price for it. Fast focusing but images were terrible, it sharpens up at f4 but I could just use a zoom so there was no point. Sold it and got half my money back.


----------



## veng (Mar 15, 2017)

I just can't see how this lens makes any sense. If it was a 35mm f/2.8 w/o IS and it was priced at 100-150$ and had a better magnification ratio than the 40, maybe? With IS, I can't imagine the price is going to be that much lower than the 35 f/2 IS and the question would become why wouldn't you just get the f/2. Because you want better maximum magnification? A 35mm lens is going to give you a really poor working distance so it's not going to be a master of nothing. Just can't see how to get excited by this lens which is a real let down seeing how I was hoping for something actually wide angle given the rumors.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Mar 15, 2017)

Perhaps, the "M" is intended to be a silent letter, eh?


----------



## slclick (Mar 15, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



scrup said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



I never said anything about reviews, I added my 2 cents from owning it.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2017)

veng said:


> I just can't see how this lens makes any sense. If it was a 35mm f/2.8 w/o IS and it was priced at 100-150$ and had a better magnification ratio than the 40, maybe? With IS, I can't imagine the price is going to be that much lower than the 35 f/2 IS and the question would become why wouldn't you just get the f/2. Because you want better maximum magnification? A 35mm lens is going to give you a really poor working distance so it's not going to be a master of nothing. Just can't see how to get excited by this lens which is a real let down seeing how I was hoping for something actually wide angle given the rumors.



The new lens will be either be smaller/lighter, inexpensive, or offer new functionality. Or some combination of the three. The M in particular has me wonder if it might be mount-reversible (like others have said) or possibly have the macro lighting built in.

As for IS being expensive, that certainly is true with L lenses, but often not so with EF-S lenses. See list here from B&H of all IS EF-S lenses Canon sells -- many are super affordable. (No idea why the pancake is on that list, which lacks IS; I guess the website has it filed incorrectly.)

As for why not to get the 35mm f/2 IS USM -- which a wonderful instrument -- instead of this new lens, we don't know yet. It could just be a fairly unexciting lens like many (presently) think it might be, but it might have some new hotness that dramatically raises its desirability. We shall see.

- A


----------



## FECHariot (Mar 16, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you missed my point. I suggest you jump into a swimming pool with some friends...



Yep that went so far over his head that it didn't even mess his hair up.


----------



## veng (Mar 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> veng said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't see how this lens makes any sense. If it was a 35mm f/2.8 w/o IS and it was priced at 100-150$ and had a better magnification ratio than the 40, maybe? With IS, I can't imagine the price is going to be that much lower than the 35 f/2 IS and the question would become why wouldn't you just get the f/2. Because you want better maximum magnification? A 35mm lens is going to give you a really poor working distance so it's not going to be a master of nothing. Just can't see how to get excited by this lens which is a real let down seeing how I was hoping for something actually wide angle given the rumors.
> ...



250$ until you get to the 18-55 STM on your list, then upto 300 gets you a few more. The 35 f/2 IS is only 250$ more than the 10-18 or the 55-250 STM (BTW, I own both, they're great lenses for the price). But then again that's the meat of it. The 10-18 is a lens that is half the cost of the 10-22, is much lighter, actually has IS where the 10-22 doesn't. The 55-250 of course is a hell of a lot cheaper and lighter than a 70-200 f/4. But the 35f/2 isn't heavy by any stretch. It's also not large. It's not as small as a pancake, that's for sure, but with the extra elements to add IS, this prime isn't going to be pancake small either. It's unlikely to be half of the cost 35 f/2 IS, half the weight, or half the size. Oh well, we'll see. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised and the M will stand for magnificent and I'll be forced to go add one to my collection. I don't see it being possible for it to make me sell my 35 f/2 IS however.


----------



## FECHariot (Mar 16, 2017)

The more I think about it, unless M stands for some device that acts exactly opposite a 2x Tc turning the 35/2.8 into a 17/1.4, I don't care what M stands for.

So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2017)

This is whack


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 16, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



slclick said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



Nor did I say anything about reviews either. 

I haven't shot the lens for quite some time, mostly used it on crop back when I really was a novice. But I still think the optical quality is more than good enough. These are before I knew how to post process. All shot at f/2.2 or faster.



IMG_3067 by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr



20130610-IMG_3533 by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr



20140310-IMG_8758-T2i by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr


----------



## Talys (Mar 16, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.



But the Nikon 35/1.8 has no image stabilization, or am I mistaken? I'm not really that up to speed on Nikon lenses.

I think there are some who would take 2.8 IS over 1.8 no IS. Personally, I would, if I had to choose (especially after I agonized over 24-70, and ultimately bought f/4IS). I quite like 2.8 -- I think it finds a nice place between capturing enough depth of field and isolating the subject, and of course, all the IQ and light in the world is worth nothing if the image is blurry.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2017)

Talys said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.
> ...



+1

Depends on the application, but yes, I generally prefer [slower + IS] over [faster - IS]. I own the 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS and both are wonderful. Further, on the zoom side, I sold my 24-70 f/2.8L I for the 24-70 f/4L IS and never regretted it.

If you are shooting handheld + low light + static subjects + no flash, it's really no contest. The 3-ish stops of IS are effectively 'virtual speed' to give you the latitude you need to get the shot. The classic 'fast prime' without IS, in comparison, would need to use a higher ISO to do the same job.

But it obviously depends on what you shoot -- one tool is not categorically better than the other:


A handheld available light of a church nave --> go slow + IS.


Street shooting at night --> go fast prime (presume moving people are involved)

...you get the idea.

- A


----------



## Berowne (Mar 16, 2017)

M = Movie.


----------



## Dvash7 (Mar 16, 2017)

What if they got it wrong and the M and S are actually switched 
It's an EF-M 35mm f/2.8 S IS STM
Now, what does the S stand for? ;D


----------



## midluk (Mar 16, 2017)

Dvash7 said:


> Now, what does the S stand for? ;D


Slow


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 16, 2017)

I think the M will not just be for Macro - they have Macro lenses already, and even macro lenses with lights, and they don't follow that naming scheme (and Canon is an almost-religious adherent to their naming scheme, hence all the "II" and "III" models). So, I will guess it will match the other place they use the standalone letter M and have a dual mount of some sort for the EOS M. And somehow it will be a switchable mount, not reversible with one end being a crazy macro.


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 16, 2017)

L = Large
M = Medium
S = Small

Obvious!


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 16, 2017)

magarity said:


> Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?



Cost, more glass means more expensive. Most people will not pay big bucks for a APS-C lens only.. Those that will buy Sigma..


----------



## ecka (Mar 16, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> magarity said:
> 
> 
> > Is there some physics limitation of the distance from the mount flange to the sensor that keeps the widest EF-S lenses at 2.8? Why are there no 1.x or even 2.0? Or is it just that Canon doesn't make any?
> ...



Not really. For example, EF 55mm F2 would need near as much glass, as EF-S 35mm F1.4, while the cheap EF50/1.8 is literally a prototype (kind of) of an EF-S 28/1.2 and it will act like one, after Metabones produces a SpeedBooster for the M.


----------



## ecka (Mar 16, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



Luds34 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...



The EF28/1.8USM is not a landscaping lens by my standards. I'd rather shoot with my 40 pancake and stitch later, than deal with the soft edges . It's not terrible though. However, it is beautiful at close to medium distances, portraits, street, pets and stuff. The bokeh is really nice (for a wide angle lens) and it seems even sharper in those genres.

BTW, nice shots


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 16, 2017)

I'm stumped to be honest, unless it's some hybrid EF-M and EF-S mount lens. mount one way for EF-S, turn it around and mount it the other way for EF-M.

M as Macro doesn't make sense - canon doesn't give a distinction to any other macro outside of calling it "macro" so why wouldn't they call this "macro" if it was indeed a macro.

usually canon puts the focus motor as the identifier with stabilization. ie: STM, IS STM, IS USM, IS, etc.

the only other designation they have used is "macro" but it already exists, staying it's M for macro. I can't see it. it's a pretty stupid idea if that's it.

my only other thought is since the identifier is usually the AF motor, maybe this is a lens cap 35mm /2.8 and it's manual focus only or some form of new micro motor.

I also suspect this is another pancake. a 35mm/2.8 pancake is easier to make than a 24/2.8. 

that actually would end up being a nice pancake suit - 24,35,40.


Edit: if the name is EF-S 35mm 2.8 M IS STM then the M can't be a function of the AF motor. so ignore all the rambling and I really have no idea. but I doubt it's macro.


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2017)

Micro STM


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 16, 2017)

slclick said:


> Micro STM



they already have that, and are just calling it STM.

Edit: if the name is EF-S 35mm 2.8 M IS STM then the M can't be a function of the AF motor.


----------



## FECHariot (Mar 16, 2017)

Talys said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.
> ...



The thing is you can already get 2.8 stabilized with Canon because they have an excellent 17-55 zoom and the Sigma 17-50 is also excellent for half the cost of the 17-55. From there why buy a stack of slow 2.8 primes (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 40/2.8) to do what the one zoom can do for you and more? Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point? I guess if you are happy with 5.6 zooms to compliment 2.8 primes, but when you talk equivalent apertures on crop, you are really talking about 9.0 zooms complimenting 4.5 primes and how many f4 primes have you seen in the full frame world that were not UWA 17mm or supper tele 500 and plus?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point?



For a common max aperture, primes are smaller, lighter, and (almost always) sharper than zooms.

- A


----------



## FECHariot (Mar 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point?
> ...



One prime might be smaller and lighter but a bag full of primes will not be. And people in general are really too caught up with sharpness: Most never print or display big enough to notice the difference. If you just want to look at pixel level sharpness at 200% then knock yourself out with a bag full of slow primes...


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...



Personally I don't subscribe to the "bag full of primes is heavy" argument. In use you wouldn't replace say a 24-70 with six primes, you would probably have a 28 and a 50 perhaps, and you lose the versatility of FoV that the zoom offers. I guess this new lens is not aimed at your typical CR member, it's for people who own a Rebel and want a small, cheap but sharp lens. Your typical 18-55 lens is around f/5 at 35mm, so a 35mm offering a high IQ at f/2.8 would offer enough visible difference in the picture to make it worthwhile for many, I'm sure.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...



I didn't say you should replace your zoom with a bag of primes. Use one and move your feet.

"People in general are really too caught up with sharpness" = your priorities are what's the _world's_ priorities should be. That's selfish and myopic. I could argue "people in general don't like to move their feet" or "people in general don't like a challenge" in a similar manner, but that does everyone's differing needs a disservice. 

There is a time for a zoom and there is a time for a prime. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But I _am_ saying primes offer more to photographers than having faster max aperture than a zoom.

- A


----------



## ecka (Mar 16, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...



What's heavier? - 5kg of primes or 5kg of zooms? 
Now, what's heavier to actually shoot with? - F2.8 pancake or some kind of a decent and light(-ish) zoom kit-lens?
Because of the extra sharpness and resolution, primes offer a much better cropability, so my 40STM pancake can easily act like 40-80mm f/2.8-5.6 and I really enjoy using it for stitching landscapes.
IMHO, zooming over 100% is pointless, but not only most people never print or display big enough, most people just don't use (or need) real cameras. Therefore they shouldn't be telling other people how to shoot.


----------



## Talys (Mar 16, 2017)

Maybe M means grab-the-ring Manual Focus! 

If canon made an always-on MF override, STM, 35mm/2.8 IS for $200 or less with the sort of IQ you expect from canon primes, I'd buy it without thinking twice.


----------



## Talys (Mar 16, 2017)

ecka said:


> IMHO, zooming over 100% is pointless, but not only most people never print or display big enough, most people just don't use (or need) real cameras. Therefore they shouldn't be telling other people how to shoot.



I don't get it. If an eagle is nesting or in flight, how do I photograph it at 100% zoom without being Doctor Strange? If a cougar is 100 ft away from me in the snow, how do I photograph her without getting eaten? And if my subject is an inch and a half tall miniature and I want to fill printed page of it in all its glory, how do I capture it without magnification?

Yeah, if all you want to do is take selfies or facebook photos of drunk friends in a pub, whatever. But for people who want to enjoy photography, getting a camera that gives them lots of control is just a thing, whether they take great pictures or not. What's important is that the enjoy whatever they're doing.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 16, 2017)

I was really hoping for something more exciting(at least for me), a 10mm, 15mm or something like that.
This is one of the most boring and uninteresting lenses Canon could release. We have already a 28mm 1.8, 28mm 28, 35mm F2, 35mm 1.4, 40mm 2.8. Why another 35mm?

At least hope that M letter brings something unique.


----------



## ecka (Mar 16, 2017)

Talys said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, zooming over 100% is pointless, but not only most people never print or display big enough, most people just don't use (or need) real cameras. Therefore they shouldn't be telling other people how to shoot.
> ...



Sure, for each his own. Smartphones can shoot decent selfies for facebook. I'm just saying that those people have no right to preach things like "small facebook pics are all you need" or that "pixel-peeping is a mortal sin".
And by zooming over 100% I meant "pixel-peeping" at such crazy magnification levels. There is no extra information past 100%.
Now about those eagles and cougars ... , I think that hardly a small kit-lens would be of any help in those situations.


----------



## ecka (Mar 16, 2017)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I was really hoping for something more exciting(at least for me), a 10mm, 15mm or something like that.
> This is one of the most boring and uninteresting lenses Canon could release. We have already a 28mm 1.8, 28mm 28, 35mm F2, 35mm 1.4, 40mm 2.8. Why another 35mm?
> 
> At least hope that M letter brings something unique.



Honestly, I think your suggested current 5-lens 28-40mm coverage is already an overkill. Three is plenty


----------



## picture-maker (Mar 16, 2017)

When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.

I do miss that lens.

I’ve got a Sony smart phone that I’ve had since 2012 (it’s 3G). It’s an Xperia T and has an f2.4 lens and 13.2mp camera. The pictures it takes are nothing short of excellent.

I’ve measured the angle of view against a zoom and as far as I can tell, it’s the equivalent of a 35mm lens on full frame dSLR.

I’ve had 2 Sony smart phones since the Xperia T, and currently an iPhone SE. The cameras on the smart phones since the Sony Xperia T have all had lenses with a wider angle lens than the Xperia T. And I noticed that I had stopped taking as many picture with my smart phone, and the iPhone SE doesn’t give me as much control either. So I have been carrying the Xperia T everywhere and taking pictures on that instead an in particular instead of the iPhone.

The drawback with the F4S was size and weigh and no built in flash. Not a big deal with such a great camera.

The drawback with my current EOS 80D is that I can’t currently get the lens I want. Canon do make the lens I want. However, it isn’t compatible with my camera.

If Canon were to make something to allow me to fit lens I want to my EOS 80D, I would be absolutely delighted.

So do I wait patiently for Canon to make an adapter for EF-M to EF-S, or an EF-S 22mm f2. 

An EF 35mm f2 and EOS 6D is a big outlay to get a lens. I dare say the size is not that much bigger than the EOS 80D, but it does have the drawback of no built in flash. And a new model is expected out soon.

So do I go Fuji? The Fuji X100F looks really interesting and could probably replace the Xperia T smart phoned. But it’s not an SLR!


----------



## slclick (Mar 16, 2017)

picture-maker said:


> When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.
> 
> I do miss that lens.
> 
> ...



I look at buying something like the X100F as getting a new 35mm lens that I can take to discreet venues, walk around anywhere camera , an alternative to lugging the 5D+ glass, fun with film simulation and just experiencing a different format and shooting style. 

It's not really all that more expensive than a nice Canon lens, so the money isn't the issue ($1399 for one focal length they say!) and it breaks up the monotony of the DSLR gear thing. It forces a sort of creativity I miss, not unlike a first year photo student told to use only the 50mm type of train of thought. It's a good thing.


----------



## ecka (Mar 17, 2017)

slclick said:


> picture-maker said:
> 
> 
> > When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.
> ...



For the price, I'd prefer 6D with 40/2.8 (or 50/1.8 ) over X100F. Simply because 6D provides similar (or better) field of view and DoF control, but with much better battery life, image quality and overall value (being a full-fledged FF DSLR with a vast EF lens family). Putting expensive cameras in my pockets is not exactly my definition of photography.
If money was no issue, then maybe I would get a Sony RX1R II, but most likely I'd just skip the "hipster miniaturism" and use the A7RII instead.


----------



## ecka (Mar 17, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> The more I think about it, unless M stands for some device that acts exactly opposite a 2x Tc turning the 35/2.8 into a 17/1.4, I don't care what M stands for.
> 
> So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.



I think the M stands for "FacepalM". Not as an abbreviation, but as a representation of the sound you make while doing it.


----------



## Talys (Mar 17, 2017)

FECHariot said:


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



I own a 17-55 2.8. It is a wonderful lens, but there are a couple of issues. First, it's not terribly good at 2.8, especially with CA, at nearly every focal length. It isn't really great until it is stepped down to f4 or slower. At no part of its focal range or aperture setting comparable to 50STM or EF24-70/4 (at any setting). 

The second problem with 17-55 is AF. It was great 12 years ago, buy now it's a kludge (as are some other, otherwise great lens like 50/1.4) compared with STM nano USM, or ring USM on newer L lens. It's way too noisy for video, and the focus hunt is not worthy of a nearly $1k lens. 

That brings us to the last issue -- price. It costs a lot, and is 77mm (meaning pricy filters). In fact, I think it costs more now than when I bought mine 10years ago. Back then, it was absolutely worth it, and it remains a useful tool today, but no way I'd pay that now (I would buy 24-70). 

If 35/2.8 gives good IQ at 2.8 -- like the 50 1.8 does -- it becomes a cheap and light prime.
exciting? Not really. But useful? For some, sure.


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2017)

ecka said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > picture-maker said:
> ...



I don't wear cargo shorts or pants so nothing was said about pockets. 
I do see what you are saying about a 6D in terms of a size or weight reduction over a 5D3 but it's still too close for me. If I'm getting a second camera, it's not to buy into another lens eco system or to make a similar choice, I want something different, unique, easy going and enjoyable. I don't give a shit if I'm seen with it or not, the hipster factor with these things is annoying. I'm not trying to pass it off as a Leica or whatnot. It just seems to be a solid shooter. 

Then give me the 6D2 with a flippy and I'll have my trinity.


----------



## ecka (Mar 17, 2017)

slclick said:


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



Well, ironically, cargo pants are worn mostly by those same "hipster miniaturism" advocates. I'm glad you are not in their camp . My 6D suggestion over a 5D3 is based purely on pricing. It could be Sony A7 just as well. I would love to have a 5D4 or 5DsR, but unfortunately, it is far out of my budget range, just like any unreasonably overpriced crop toys. Perhaps I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.
Yes, the hipster factor is really annoying. The quirky design, retro looks, compromised controls with all kinds of atavism, premium pricing and cargo pants . I hope we'll get that 6D2 with a flippy real soon.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 17, 2017)

It just dawned on me. We have been talking about the focal length, aperture and possible macro. But as far as I can tell no one has mentioned the fact that its a STM lens and that STM is horrible for manual focusing. So if this is a Macro lens.. M sure as heck will mean Meh..


----------



## KristinnK (Mar 17, 2017)

Talys said:


> I own a 17-55 2.8. It is a wonderful lens, but there are a couple of issues. First, it's not terribly good at 2.8, especially with CA, at nearly every focal length. It isn't really great until it is stepped down to f4 or slower. At no part of its focal range or aperture setting comparable to 50STM or EF24-70/4 (at any setting).



Take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 then. Sharp as can be wide open, only slightly softer at 50mm, but back to sharp at f/3.2. It's an old lens with slow and noisy autofocus, and it doesn't have stabilization, but it only costs 300$! It was my first lens (except for the kit lens), and it's still my most used lens.

Canon could easily design a similarly sharp lens, add in stabilization and sell it for 500-600$. But they don't because they want to force more people to buy full-frame cameras and full-frame lenses. Sigma and Tamron's excellent crop lenses must be a huge thorn in Canon's side.


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2017)

19 days until we find out what M is. 

Could be Canon's favorite Cure song?
A nod to James Bond?


----------



## FECHariot (Mar 17, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I didn't say you should replace your zoom with a bag of primes. Use one and move your feet.
> 
> "People in general are really too caught up with sharpness" = your priorities are what's the _world's_ priorities should be. That's selfish and myopic. I could argue "people in general don't like to move their feet" or "people in general don't like a challenge" in a similar manner, but that does everyone's differing needs a disservice.
> 
> ...



Sorry the foot zooming thing doesn't work. Even if you don't need to walk yourself back off a cliff or into another room, you still change the relative perspective of items in the shot and this might be very important to what you are trying to get in the shot.

Now I definitely don't claim that my needs = everyone elses, but from my needs, I don't see where a 56mm 4.5 equivalent lens is something all that great. Let's assume M does stand for macro, Canon in 1979 had a 50mm 3.5 macro lens 2/3 a stop faster than this one in equivalent terms. Nearly 40 years later they are putting out essentially slower lenses.


----------



## FECHariot (Mar 17, 2017)

Talys said:


> I own a 17-55 2.8. It is a wonderful lens, but there are a couple of issues. First, it's not terribly good at 2.8, especially with CA, at nearly every focal length. It isn't really great until it is stepped down to f4 or slower. At no part of its focal range or aperture setting comparable to 50STM or EF24-70/4 (at any setting).
> 
> The second problem with 17-55 is AF. It was great 12 years ago, buy now it's a kludge (as are some other, otherwise great lens like 50/1.4) compared with STM nano USM, or ring USM on newer L lens. It's way too noisy for video, and the focus hunt is not worthy of a nearly $1k lens.
> 
> ...



Exactly, I would rather see Canon put effort into upgrading the now getting old 17-55 than putting out a bunch of slow primes. And if they want to put out primes, great, at least make them faster than 2.8. 

Like I mentioned before the $200 Nikon 35/1.8 is over ten years old and Canon has had nothing in the budget category in that focal length. I guess Canon didn't want to kill sales of the 35/2 IS so they made this one slower to differentiate it. I would rather have seen them try to one up Nikon and offer a 35/1.8 IS for EFS and compromise on build quality rather than aperture. If they build it like a 18-55's construction, then the nicer build of the current 35/2 IS would then differentiate that from this one.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 17, 2017)

*Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017*



ecka said:


> The EF28/1.8USM is not a landscaping lens by my standards. I'd rather shoot with my 40 pancake and stitch later, than deal with the soft edges . It's not terrible though. However, it is beautiful at close to medium distances, portraits, street, pets and stuff. The bokeh is really nice (for a wide angle lens) and it seems even sharper in those genres.
> 
> BTW, nice shots



That's a valid point and I'm in agreement. The 28mm f/1.8 is not a great landscape lens. Sure if you stop it down to f/8 it's actual okay in the corners, but there are far better choices for landscape. But to use as a "normal", fast prime on a crop sensor for shooting people/street/event (what I purchased it for) it is actually a pretty good lens. That fast aperture really allows shooting in lower light and does create some solid bokeh, something needed much more on crop then if one was shooting full frame.

I'm too lazy to stitch but I bet you get some great shots with that 40mm and using that technique. I'm still amazed such a tiny lens is so sharp. 

Too kind on complimenting my shots, but thank you.


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2017)

Ok so back to naming schemes and designations. 
The 'M' in question is placed where the well known 'L' is after the EF. So it's not calling out anything to do with stabilization or the AF motor. It's a ranking of sorts. 
The first of a new line? 19 days.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 17, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> Exactly, I would rather see Canon put effort into upgrading the now getting old 17-55 than putting out a bunch of slow primes. And if they want to put out primes, great, at least make them faster than 2.8.



+1

I think it's great to see crop shooters getting a little love from Canon with a dedicated prime. But it has a bit of "dead on arrival" being so slow at f/2.8.

Also the 35mm FL. As has been mentioned, there are a ton of actual lenses available in the 35mm range. Give APS-C folks a fast (at least f/2) *35mm full frame equivalent*. That's what is missing, the wide angle primes. Because right now they can mount a 35, 50, 85 to give them FF equivalents of 50, 85, 135. It's the 24mm and 35mm of the world that are missing.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 17, 2017)

So, I've crunched the numbers and here's where we stand...

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 17, 2017)

Maybe the M is in there for...

EF-S 35mm F/2.8 M IS STM

;D

Or... "Made you guess!"


----------



## bhf3737 (Mar 17, 2017)

Perhaps the M means "AF Microadjustable". Meaning that one can perform AF microadjustment on the lens itself by turning a knob or so to get a perfect focus in case of back or front focusing issues. If so, it is a novel technology, i.e. other lenses or companies seem not having it. It makes sense for primes and also it makes sense for EF-S cameras, like Rebels, that have no AF microadjustment built into the camera itself. Perhaps Canon has decided to introduce this technology and test it on this lens and then spread it later on.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 17, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> I think the M will not just be for Macro - they have Macro lenses already, and even macro lenses with lights, and they don't follow that naming scheme (and Canon is an almost-religious adherent to their naming scheme, hence all the "II" and "III" models). So, I will guess it will match the other place they use the standalone letter M and have a dual mount of some sort for the EOS M. And somehow it will be a switchable mount, not reversible with one end being a crazy macro.



I agree they are quite consistent with naming, but if it's an EF-S and EF-M hybrid, why not EF-S-M, or EF-S/M? Putting the M way down the name makes no sense.

Incidentally, for those saying 'Movie', given Canon went with C for Cinema line bodies and lenses, I doubt it.

I still half believe it's a mistranslation, poor communication, or some letters are missing. But we'll see - it's certainly generated a lot more interest than it might otherwise have done!


----------



## scyrene (Mar 17, 2017)

FECHariot said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say you should replace your zoom with a bag of primes. Use one and move your feet.
> ...



Of course one thing that has changed in that time is the maximum useable ISO speed. I happen to love wide aperture lenses, but one reason they exist is when film ISO was limited, they allowed more light into the camera. Now ISOs go several stops higher than most film, it's not such an issue in that regard.


----------



## barracuda (Mar 17, 2017)

slclick said:


> Ok so back to naming schemes and designations.
> The 'M' in question is placed where the well known 'L' is after the EF. So it's not calling out anything to do with stabilization or the AF motor. It's a ranking of sorts.
> The first of a new line? 19 days.



I like this. If you look up the English/Japanese translation for "Luxury", "Magnificence" shows up. So perhaps the "M" designation is Canon's luxury version for the EF-S line and perhaps the unique feature of this lens is that it's the first EF-S lens with weather sealing. This would be a useful feature for a video/STM lens.


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2017)

barracuda said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so back to naming schemes and designations.
> ...



Ahh, a new take on the mysterious M. A high end EF-S class of glass. I like it. Maybe it's got the blue goo.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Mar 17, 2017)

*Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*

This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point. 

Canon needs to open up the apertures on EF-S lenses. Like right now...


----------



## KristinnK (Mar 17, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



memoriaphoto said:


> This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point.
> 
> Canon needs to open up the apertures on EF-S lenses. Like right now...



It's even worse. It's a 56mm f/4.5. I repeat, a "nifty-fifty" with a max aperture of 4.5. That's two and a half stops worse than what full-frame people get for 125$. With a 2.5x larger image circle. I can't decide if it's comically absurd or just depressingly sad. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding, that the lens is actually a 10mm (16mm FF equiv.) f2.8 astro lens, or a fast 35mm f1.4 normal prime.

If this is really what will be unveiled in April I'm convinced Canon took the time, effort and money to develop this lens purely to spite enthusiasts that use crop-frame Canon cameras.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 17, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



KristinnK said:


> memoriaphoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point.
> ...



If it has even 0.5x macro functionality, it will be useful for all sorts of things. I've seen plenty of people saying that f/2.8 is needlessly wide for macro lenses on these forums. I happen to disagree, but if that is its speciality - with a built-in light especially - it'll be great for casual food/product photography, selfies, and suchlike.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 17, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



scyrene said:


> If it has even 0.5x macro functionality, it will be useful for all sorts of things. I've seen plenty of people saying that f/2.8 is needlessly wide for macro lenses on these forums. I happen to disagree, but if that is its speciality - with a built-in light especially - it'll be great for casual food/product photography, selfies, and suchlike.



+1. The 'compact macro' (i.e. 1:2, 0.5x, etc.) seems destined to get a healthy wind in its sails from food photography, and not from pro food photogs doing lit/staged work. Tourists/foodies/traveler bloggers who take shots of their food _from their seat_ will use this.

That is, of course, presuming the M is for macro. We still don't know that yet.

- A


----------



## TeT (Mar 18, 2017)

What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 18, 2017)

TeT said:


> What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?


Cost just $ 100?
Good sharpness and contrast when wide open.
Very low chromatic aberration.
Vignette 1/3 stop.
Zero distortion.
Macro 1x.

So it would be a good sales.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 18, 2017)

TeT said:


> What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?



Better _what_ -- overall? Better value?

My guess is this will be a nice $250-300 lens that is smaller in diameter and weight to the 35 f/2 IS USM. Then 35mm prime shoppers in the EF-S universe will have three first party options:

Good: 35 f/2.8 M IS STM @ $299
Better: 35 f/2 IS USM @ $549
Best: 35 f/1.4L II @ $1649

That's a nice lineup.

But if the M is some nutty reverse-mounting macro, illuminated macro or some video-dedicated tool (integral light for vlogging?), it could be a standalone animal that wouldn't be compared alongside other lenses. Canon might prefer that to ask for more money.

- A


----------



## TeT (Mar 18, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?
> ...



Thanks, that puts it in perspective and makes sense that it may take the Nifty Fifty slot for the 35mm's (but probably better than the nifty since 35MM is such a competitive focal length)


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 18, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > What does it need to be better than the 35 IS f2?
> ...



The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM costs $149. I don't think IS justifies doubling the lens' price.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 18, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Better _what_ -- overall? Better value?
> ...



SMH. The photography world would be a better place if people applied value to more things than just a lens' max aperture, what focusing speed it offers and if it has IS.

What if this lens offers features that a stripped down focus-by-wire pancake doesn't have? What if it had FTM mechanical focusing? A focus ring wider than a paper clip? A distance scale? A hood and hood attachment design you actually _want_ to use? A common filter diameter instead of an odd one?

What if this new lens is indeed macro? What if this lens has some slick video-friendly functionality beyond just IS?

I'm completely speculating on the price, of course -- we don't know enough yet. But using a pancake to peg any new prime's price is like saying all standard primes should be f/1.8 and $125 because that's what the nifty fifty costs. :

- A


----------



## photonius (Mar 18, 2017)

Another wacky idea (unlikely with a f2.8 lens): Microfocus adjust (in lens)

1) Use live view, focus
2) Press M button on lens
3) Use viewfinder phase detect AF. If there is an difference to live view, the lens will have moved by a few notches. 
4) Press M again, the lens now records the difference in lens memory. 
Now, when using PDAF, the lens knows how much to offset with respect to the signal from the camera.

Sort of like a Sigma dock, without the dock.


----------



## benkam (Mar 18, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > TeT said:
> ...



Tell that to Canon, reallly. The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM currently costs $549.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 18, 2017)

benkam said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



And is full frame.... :


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2017)

benkam said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I think there's a bit more to it than IS. Take a look at the glass, the groups..


----------



## Tom W (Mar 18, 2017)

benkam said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM costs $149. I don't think IS justifies doubling the lens' price.
> ...



The 24 f/2.8 IS USM is also full frame, and has true USM AF. That said, the EF-S 24 is a bit of a bargain, as is the 40 mm pancake.


----------



## benkam (Mar 18, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



KristinnK said:


> memoriaphoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point.
> ...



Does the "nifty-fifty" have IS? Not even the 1.2L or 1.4 Art does. Tamron offers a 45mm 1.8 VC that costs several hundred dollars/euros/pounds. 

Has anybody complained that the 17-55 2.8 IS should not exist because it's (rounded off to common FLs) a 28-90-ish 4.5 IS equivalent? If Canon offer one of that zoom's crucial focal lengths, the 50-ish, as an optimized prime in a smaller, lighter and should be notably cheaper package, plus with that mysterious M thingy, then I say why not.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 18, 2017)

Tom W said:


> benkam said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Yes, both the 24 and 40 pancakes are nice little bargains. I loved the 24mm mounted on a Rebel. Was a great little package with a very useful FL and I remember pre-ordering it. Of course I eventually sold all my EF-S cameras and had to let the 24mm go. But I agree, their prices are not terribly indicative of most Canon lenses.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 18, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



KristinnK said:


> memoriaphoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is 56mm f/4 on full frame. Who on earth would want that? Even if it has macro-capabilities or super silent movie-focusmotor... don't see the point.
> ...



oh good grief.

a) you don't know what this lens is - could be a pancake.

c) it's only f4.5 in terms of dof control, otherwise, it's a f2.8 lens. get over it.

and then you ask for an even more esoteric astrolandscape lens? oh please.


----------



## KristinnK (Mar 19, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



rrcphoto said:


> a) you don't know what this lens is - could be a pancake.



That's irrelevant. A 56mm f4.5 is equally shitty if it's 0.5 mm long or 5 cm long.



rrcphoto said:


> c) it's only f4.5 in terms of dof control, otherwise, it's a f2.8 lens. get over it.



This is not true. A 35mm f2.8 lens gathers the same amount of light (information) into a 1.6 crop sensor as a 56mm f4.5 lens gathers into a full-frame sensor (assuming the image circle is completely covers the sensor in both cases).



rrcphoto said:


> and then you ask for an even more esoteric astrolandscape lens? oh please.



Esoteric means something that appeals to or interests few people. However in the thread about the rumored "wide angle" EF-S lens a lot of people were hoping for a real wide-angle (~16mm FF equivalent, i.e. ~10mm), wide aperture (i.e. f2.8 or wider) lens. In fact even though there are a few third party options (especially the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8) that shows that there is a demand for this type of lens, there is no native Canon lens that fills this need. The third party options also show this is not a difficult lens to make, even as a zoom!


----------



## Nininini (Mar 19, 2017)

wow, I have never seen so much bitching about a lens, and it makes no sense at all

This lens is likely going to be great.

Many APS-C users couldn't afford the 35mm f/2.0. Secondly, the 35mm f/2.0 is a very old lens that has many elements and outdated coating, causing issues with flaring and its IS isn't up to par with current lenses. Canon has learned a thing or two about coatings and IS since then. Thirdly, it's a full frame lens, I don't like paying for glass and weight I'm not going to use.

At f/2.8 with an APS-C image circle, this lens will remain light and affordable for APS-C users, the IS is just icing on the cake. 

What is wrong with f/2.8? Not everyone wants a heavy expensive f/1.4 lens, most people just want a fast enough lens to prevent motion blur, not have a razor thin DoF.

People love those f/2.8 pancake lenses, f/2.8 is great for the average user, it's about 1-2 stops faster than the kit lens which means I can drop my ISO from 3200 to 800 in very dark environments, or raise my shutter speed. And this lens has IS, giving me another few stops for static subjects.

What is the complaining about the focal length about? It will be around a standard 50mm full frame equivalent, one of the most useful and most pleasing focal lengths out there.

For the people complaining they wanted a wide angle. The 10-18mm is NOT a bad lens, there are few lenses out there that have 0 distortion at 14mm, it's also a bargain lens at its price. I'm sure Canon will make a faster wide angle prime one day. Just hold your horses.

Stop the complaining, this lens could be awesome.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



benkam said:


> Has anybody complained that the 17-55 2.8 IS should not exist because it's (rounded off to common FLs) a 28-90-ish 4.5 IS equivalent? If Canon offer one of that zoom's crucial focal lengths, the 50-ish, as an optimized prime in a smaller, lighter and should be notably cheaper package, plus with that mysterious M thingy, then I say why not.



I think a lot of the reason there's so much resistance to this lens is twofold:

1. People are disappointed that the lens isn't their dream lens. 50/1.4 IS, 200-600/5.6, 24-70/2.8 IS, 17-55 II, 8-800/1.0 ... whatever. 

2. There are a lot of people here who own or want a pro lens that's 3x heavier and more expensive, and just aren't excited about consumer quality EFS lens.

I will be the first to admit that I'm not really excited about a lot of the EFS lenses, but I buy a lot of them, because many are practical, cheap (or at least, excellent value), and pretty darn good. In a lot of cases, I can't justify a pro lens, but the consumer version, however unsexy, is plenty good enough -- especially when it comes to a prime. Or, a consumer lens is light and good enough to put on a second body.


----------



## benkam (Mar 19, 2017)

Talys said:


> benkam said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody complained that the 17-55 2.8 IS should not exist because it's (rounded off to common FLs) a 28-90-ish 4.5 IS equivalent? If Canon offer one of that zoom's crucial focal lengths, the 50-ish, as an optimized prime in a smaller, lighter and should be notably cheaper package, plus with that mysterious M thingy, then I say why not.
> ...



True, it's funny how some people are up in arms over Canon offering this kind of lens that should've been in the EF-S line-up of primes all along. 

Like I stated several pages ago in this thread, I can see this lens, on a crop body naturally, for somebody like me who likes these small (and inexpensive) primes as possibly something that could replace swapping between the 24 STM and 50 STM. And it'll be stabilized?! With that M thing, I'm guessing would be some kind of better than usual close-focusing ability? So instead of a niche 10mm prime for crop or whatever, that kind of capable lens that could possibly be the one on your camera for most of the time? Yes, please. 

Sure, if Canon wants to bring along some of those niche lenses, they can go ahead, but I appreciate that a stabilized normal lens optimized for crop is coming, finally. Even FF users so far don't have a stabilized 50mm prime from Canon (Tamron's 45 VC comes closest) and when or if it does come, it'll likely cost quite a number of times more than this one.

I can see this lens bracketed by the 55-250 and 10-18 zooms for situations beyond this coming lens' abilities. And those who know those EF-S zooms are among the least expensive and best value lenses out there for any camera system, will get that I expect this lens to also be in those lenses' price range, so that's going to be a good thing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 19, 2017)

benkam said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



You're talking about the new FF 24mm lens (notice the S-less F & IS?), I'm talking about the crop pancake lens (notice the -S suffix?).


----------



## Nininini (Mar 19, 2017)

People crying it's not f/1.4 are ridiculous. There is not a single EF-S f/1.4 lens out there. Do these people even know what camera they bought, you bought an APS-C Canon camera, it's targeted at non-professional photographers who are looking for a budget DSLR that is still better than their iPhone. We are not looking for $1000 lenses to put on $500 rebel cameras. Get real.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 19, 2017)

Nininini said:


> wow, I have never seen so much bitching about a lens, and it makes no sense at all
> 
> This lens is likely going to be great.
> 
> Many APS-C users couldn't afford the 35mm f/2.0. Secondly, the 35mm f/2.0 is a very old lens that has many elements and outdated coating, causing issues with flaring and its IS isn't up to par with current lenses.



It's five years old, how outdated could it be? You'd expect a 4 stops IS, rather than 3?


----------



## Nininini (Mar 19, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



Talys said:


> 2. There are a lot of people here who own or want a pro lens that's 3x heavier and more expensive, and just aren't excited about consumer quality EFS lens.



Why are they whining about an EF-S lens then, shouldn't they be looking at full frame lenses? Many of these reactions make 0 sense to me.

Who in their right mind thought Canon would release an f/1.4 EF-S lens? Crazy people? People who were high when writing comments? Wut? There are no f/1.4 EF-S lenses, that's not the target audience for EF-S. Do people just click on topics about EF-S lenses to argue about completely unrelated lenses?

EF-S are budget ($100-$400) APS-C lenses which use quiet STM motors and quiet and smooth IS so video users can use them. If you're looking for $1000 f/1.4 lenses, why are you even clicking this topic.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 19, 2017)

scyrene said:


> I agree they are quite consistent with naming, but if it's an EF-S and EF-M hybrid, why not EF-S-M, or EF-S/M? Putting the M way down the name makes no sense.
> 
> Incidentally, for those saying 'Movie', given Canon went with C for Cinema line bodies and lenses, I doubt it.
> 
> I still half believe it's a mistranslation, poor communication, or some letters are missing. But we'll see - it's certainly generated a lot more interest than it might otherwise have done!



True enough, but they at least don't have a dual mount nomenclature to follow already. As I think about it, the logical name would be more "EF-M S" or somesuch, as the M mount, being shorter, would be the default, and something would be added to turn it into a standard EF-S.

Incidentally though, if the rumors of them working on a FF mirrorless are true, this could be a cheaper/ less-risky experiment into double mounts to see if it's viable to bridge to shorter-flange FF lenses.


----------



## benkam (Mar 19, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> benkam said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Sure, of course I know the diff. Anybody who goes on a site about rumors on a particular camera and lens brand should.

Now, you did notice too with the earlier post that you yourself reacted to the 35mm lens comparisons that also included both this supposed new EF-S 35mm 2.8 IS (the "good) and the *EF* 35mm f2 IS (the "better"), right? You made the your reaction based on that comparison, didn't you? So I just followed through based on that. 

My point here is Canon have always put a price premium on IS. 

Another simple example here are the *EF* 28mm's: they're priced around the same but you have to choose between a fast 1.8 max aperture or stabilization in a slower 2.8 IS. If Canon did the very unlikely and ever offered a 1.8 IS of that lens, who knows what kind of price premium they'll attach to it. Another one, the EF 135mm f2L if that does come out with IS as rumored, it'll have some other enhancements but I'm expecting that to be a premium lens.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Mar 19, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



Nininini said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > 2. There are a lot of people here who own or want a pro lens that's 3x heavier and more expensive, and just aren't excited about consumer quality EFS lens.
> ...



It doesn't have to be that way. Sigma offers 18-35/1.8 for crop-models. And take a peek at Fujifilm and their admireable line-up in the APS-C department with awesome lenses, one being the 56/1.2. Their philosophy is that you can _almost_ match the full frame concept as long has you have a good sensor and some of those beefy aperture lenses. And the bonus is much lighter equipment.

Canon don't just spit out rebels. The 7D Mark II is a good example of that. One of the most competent APS-C cameras ever made.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 19, 2017)

slclick said:


> I think there's a bit more to it than IS. Take a look at the glass, the groups..



+1

I've bedazzled your picture to best underscore your point.

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 19, 2017)

*Re: Whatever M stands for, it will be a boring lens*



memoriaphoto said:


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



One point concerning your otherwise fine post...The 7D line is not Rebel. Crop does not equate Rebel.


----------



## ecka (Mar 19, 2017)

Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2). You really cannot compensate for the lack of wide aperture.
There is very little difference between 40/2.8 and 35/2.8. I like using the 40 STM for macro / close-up with extension tubes. So, this new 35/2.8 M (supposedly Macro) could provide the luxury of not needing to deal with extension tubes. Unfortunately, crop only.
However, for me, "fast EF-S prime" is an oxymoron, because if you really want your camera to gather more light, then you should get a FF in the first place. Maybe there are no fast EF-S primes exactly because Canon thinks the same.


----------



## Mr.Click (Mar 19, 2017)

But many people can't afford FF ,especially if you need a good AF too.


----------



## ecka (Mar 19, 2017)

Mr.Click said:


> But many people can't afford FF ,especially if you need a good AF too.



That's a common misconception. Most equivalent FF lenses are not really any bigger or more expensive than crop, while being better and even cheaper. The trick is, you can buy a more expensive FF body, but you will save more money while paying less for each lens. There are some must-have EF-S lenses like 10-18 STM and 55-250 STM, which have no FF alternatives, because nobody makes f/5.6-9 FF lenses. But when it comes to F4 vs F2.8, or F2.8 vs F1.8, or F1.8 vs F1.2 ... FF always wins. I've got the EF 28/1.8 USM recently, for $250 used, which is equivalent to EF-S 18/1.2 USM. Imagine how much would it cost, if there was such a lens ...


----------



## benkam (Mar 19, 2017)

This is all so simple really. If you don't like this currently rumored lens, then don't get it. Go get the Sigma 30 1.4 or Canon's own EF 35 f2 IS. Go get the big Sigma 18-35 non-OS or the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. Or have both the 24 STM and 50 STM. Or maybe you already have one or more of those things. Or don't get anything. Have at it.

There's no one solution here that fits everybody. So going back to the simplicity of it all, this lens will meet the need of some users who want something like Canon's 35 f2 IS but is expected to be smaller, lighter, cheaper, perhaps closer focusing, even if it's a stop slower and crop only. It won't meet others' needs but that doesn't mean this lens shouldn't exist. We'll see how it is when it's actually released but some of us do look forward to being presented with this choice.


----------



## andrei1989 (Mar 19, 2017)

ecka said:


> Mr.Click said:
> 
> 
> > But many people can't afford FF ,especially if you need a good AF too.
> ...



your logic...you lost it somewhere...
and again with the crop factor applied to PHYSICAL PROPERTIES of a lens...the amount of light traveling through a lens is not influenced by the size of the captor device


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 19, 2017)

benkam said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > benkam said:
> ...



Now, you have noticed the numbers are wrong, which should have given you a clue my response (in italics) was to something else, say the line marked in bold.


----------



## ecka (Mar 19, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Click said:
> ...



The amount of light traveling through the lens is not influenced by the sensor size and is mostly irrelevant. It is influenced by the size of the image circle the lens produces. Perhaps you are confusing *the amount of light* with *light intensity*, like most people do.
What matters is the amount of light gathered by the sensor, which is actually used to create an image. 2.5 times larger FF sensor gathers 2.5 times more light at the same intensity (f/t-number). The rest is just semantics and wishful thinking.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 19, 2017)

ecka said:


> Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2). You really cannot compensate for the lack of wide aperture.


*
Fast + no IS vs. Slow + IS is all about what you prioritize and what you value -- one is not categorically better*. Consider some scenarios where I compare an f/1.4 prime vs. the the same FL offered in an f/2.8 IS where we'll say you get four stops of image stabilization:


Low light -- Concert shooting, events, etc.: Presumably your subject is moving. IS does you no favors there. The fast prime lets you keep the ISO down and is clearly the better call.


Low light -- scenery/stationary things: I always use the church nave scenario (no flash, no tripod possible), but you could say the same of a late night walkabout, or indoor shot of a sleeping child where you can't crank the lights, use a flash or run for the tripod. In this case, you have a choice of f/1.4 at ISO 6400 or f/2.8 at ISO 25600 (without IS), but IS let's you bring that down to ISO 1600. Further, the fast prime must shoot wide open to get the ISO that low, and you may want latitude to stop down for composition reasons. The slow + IS lens is the better call.


Video: unless you are either entirely shooting in candlelight or using something to stabilize the entire rig, I presume IS will do you a lot more good than the wider aperture. The slow + IS is the better call.


Action, moving subjects, candids, etc: again, IS does you no favors if people are moving -- the fast prime is the right call.


Hiking: slow + IS all day, principally for less weight to carry, but you actually can pull off some remarkably long handheld exposures for waterfalls and streams.


Some folks only enjoy small DOF work, it justifies the FF purchase, it pops more, etc.: that lens picks itself.

I'm not taking anything away from the power of a large aperture with these comments. Large aperture lenses are great. But there are some times IS buys you functionality or 'virtual speed' for stationary items to let you capture other needs better. 

- A


----------



## scyrene (Mar 19, 2017)

ecka said:


> Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2).



Of course, many of those other stabilising options are not possible in many real-world situations. Museums, churches, and other dark but static places rarely allow tripods; tripods are also awkward at parties and other functions (although usually the limiting factor there is subject movement). I think IS is useful at all focal lengths, but it is not a silver bullet of course; and wide aperture is great too, but only suitable itself in some situations (sometimes you want more depth of field).


----------



## ecka (Mar 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, it is funny how some people (many actually) are arguing that the IS is even better than having a real fast lens. I am one of those people who don't really care much about the IS in non-telephoto optics (unless for video, of course), because there are other and even better ways to stabilize, without any help of floating elements, which are actually compromising the image quality, specially when implemented and used in wide aperture lenses (like wider than F2). You really cannot compensate for the lack of wide aperture.
> ...



What I meant is that you can compensate for the IS, but NOT for the aperture.
Yes, it's all about your priorities. Just do not make statements like "my priorities are more important than anyone's" 
Tripods and flashes are not the only alternatives for IS.
Hand held video needs IS ... who's arguing?
"Hiking: slow + IS all day ..." - I'm doing fine with 'slow without IS'
FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.


----------



## Ditboy (Mar 19, 2017)

35mm EF-S would be the equivalent of a 50, so I think it will be a macro. The 60 (96 equiv) is nice, but having a 50 macro is good too. I'm sure the majority of Canon sales are for the crop sensor, so why not throw them some exclusive bones? FYI, I have used the EF-S 60 macro with my full frame Canons by using an extension tube.


----------



## ecka (Mar 19, 2017)

Ditboy said:


> 35mm EF-S would be the equivalent of a 50, so I think it will be a macro. The 60 (96 equiv) is nice, but having a 50 macro is good too. I'm sure the majority of Canon sales are for the crop sensor, so why not throw them some exclusive bones? FYI, I have used the EF-S 60 macro with my full frame Canons by using an extension tube.



Exactly. We need a new EF 60mm Macro . Preferably F2.


----------



## slclick (Mar 19, 2017)

Food lens.

M is for Munch, Mmmmm, Manger (French), Me (ego), Menu etc etc. Cats and brick walls are out, sharing your pre chewed plate of grub is the #1 IG thing to do.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> KristinnK said:
> 
> 
> > Quote removed by mod
> ...



I was shooting the band last night..... No, not the famous "The Band", just a local one that has two accordionists and also banjos, and no, I used a camera and not a gun..... I was even drinking decaf coffee! 

Point is, I was using one of those Sigma 30F1.4 lenses a crop camera..... For Canon to tempt me from a F1.4 lens to a F2.8 lens, this new lens is going to have to be particularly spectacular!

Did I mention I was drinking decaf?


----------



## slclick (Mar 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > KristinnK said:
> ...



NO, WERE YOU DRINKING DECAF?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2017)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



NO, WERE YOU DRINKING DECAF?

YES, I WAS DRINKING DECAF!

The light was poor so I was shooting ISO12800 at F1.4! Seriously though, it is amazing what you can get away with with a reasonably modern camera and a fast lens.......


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 20, 2017)

ecka said:


> FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.



f2.8 isn't bad. f2.8 means you still get some control of dof .. and full frame allows more light because the sensor is bigger. it's not that f2.8 glass all of a sudden magically have the properties of f2.0 glass on crop cameras.

you shoot sunny 16 on a crop camera as you do on a full frame camera. this equivalence nonsense has nothing to do with that, the "more light" nonsense when it comes to a lens on different format is misplaced.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 20, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.
> ...



Yes and if you use a sensor 2.56 the size of another one you capture 2.65 times the number of photons. Or to put it in photographic terms, for any given exposure (sunny 16 or anything else needed to get a shot) a ff camera will have 1.5 stops less noise than a crop camera, that is just a fact.

Equivalence is not "nonsense" it is very real and easily proven. Now we could have a very productive discussion on how often that 1.5 stops of noise is critical, or in simple terms, how often do we really need more IQ than modern crop cameras can provide but that really is another discussion.

As for the DOF argument, it is the difference between the 135 f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 at 135 both wide open shot on the same camera. Most times content will trump any dof differences and I never met anybody, and I have tried, who could reliably tell the difference between the two.

In my experience of printing many exhibition images for many different pro and amateur photographers, the dof differences between crop and ff cameras do not have a significant IQ impact, the noise differences often do.


----------



## ecka (Mar 20, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > FF is not about the DoF, it is about extra light.
> ...



Well, actually, sunny 16 is the real nonsense in digital photography, because you must be crazy to use f/16 on a bright day for no reason. I mean unless you are testing how much softer your lens is at f/16, then normally you should stay under f/11, at least for 35mm FL. The rule I'm using is sunny 100, the ISO100, and I balance the rest according to histogram or metering. Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 20, 2017)

f/16 is handy because you can focus a wide or standard focal length lens at about 3 metres in front of you and anything between 1 meter and 15 metres will be in focus for the rest of the day. I use hyperfocal when I want to photograph something in a relaxing manner and I just feel like taking some snapshots of stuff.

It only works well on bright enough days outside, where your shutter speed will be high enough to make it worth it.

But on bright days, sunny 16 rule and using hyperfocal focusing is incredibly fun, there is something satisfying about hitting the shutter and not having to wait for the camera to focus, yet having everything in a massive DoF in focus. 

It's just fun, you can just point your camera at stuff without looking at the viewfinder or live view and get a sharp picture. Sure, the quality would have been better if you used f/8.0 or lower, avoiding diffraction and being able to lower ISO, but that's not the point. The point for me is about having fun, the pictures on bright days with f/16 are still great, and you no longer have to focus on anything, it's fun, try it.


----------



## ecka (Mar 20, 2017)

Nininini said:


> f/16 is handy because you can focus a wide or standard focal length lens at about 3 metres in front of you and anything between 1 meter and 15 metres will be in focus for the rest of the day. I use hyperfocal when I want to photograph something in a relaxing manner and I just feel like taking some snapshots of stuff.
> 
> It only works well on bright enough days outside, where your shutter speed will be high enough to make it worth it.
> 
> ...



Well, I think we have a very different understanding of "fun". Shooting pictures without thinking or even looking seems like a pretty boring way of killing time. And why would I need a DSLR for this kind of "fun"? Why not just use your phone? I don't really shoot pictures for the sake of shooting pictures.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 20, 2017)

ecka said:


> And why would I need a DSLR for this kind of "fun"? Why not just use your phone?



Uh...just because you shoot at f/16, doesn't mean a smartphone is suddenly the same quality as a canon DSLR. 
There's more determining image quality than f-stop equivalence and diffraction. 

Not to mention a smartphone is clumsy to hold, you can't see the screen in bright light, it has inferior IS to canon cameras, can't change focal length, etc.

Not like I shoot at f/16 all the time, but in bright light it's fun to shoot at f/16 and have a massive DoF, I like seeing where I was in the picture, the environment.



ecka said:


> Shooting pictures without thinking or even looking seems like a pretty boring way of killing time.



Taking pictures is about being in the moment for me. It's about going outside and having fun.

It's not about razor thin DoF for me, which is why I don't care about fast full frame lenses. 

I'm the typical APS-C rebel user, I shoot in natural light, I only shoot JPEG, I don't use flashes or timers or tripods, my cameras is set to center point AF and aperture priority. I don't "edit" pictures afterwards, I shoot on the spot. I don't know what Lightroom is, and I don't care. I don't need an EVF either, I prefer being in the moment and looking at life instead.

I just have fun with my camera. That's the point of rebels, having fun. Canon knows this too, every rebel video they put out or video about EF-S lenses is about going outside and having fun! We are not professional photographers. That doesn't mean we don't know how to use a camea, we do.

The canon pancake f/2.8 lenses are perfect for people like us. They are light, easy to carry, sharp, and let in just enough light. You don't feel bad about banging the lenses against things, they're cheap and get used by thousands of people. This 35mm will be similar I believe, with the bonus of having IS.


Canon understands us, they know what we want. Good quality cameras and lenses that don't cost a lot of money and are intuitive and fun to use. This video about the 24mm f/2.8 shows they understand us, we are the typical camera user who just wants to go outside and carry their camera with them to capture moments. We represent the largest users of DSLR, we're casual shooters. We don't get money from taking pictures, we do it because we get enjoyment out of it.

https://youtu.be/W_f3iUlGHO4

This has always been the case for Canon APS-C. For people who want expensive glass there are full frame Canon lenses, or Fuji, or Sigma, or Leica, there are plenty of choices for everyone.

The rest of us will keep having fun with our cheap EF-S workhorse lenses that are good enough to take great pictures and cheap enough to be used without worrying about damage. It's about fun for us.


----------



## sanj (Mar 20, 2017)

ecka said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > f/16 is handy because you can focus a wide or standard focal length lens at about 3 metres in front of you and anything between 1 meter and 15 metres will be in focus for the rest of the day. I use hyperfocal when I want to photograph something in a relaxing manner and I just feel like taking some snapshots of stuff.
> ...



I am lucky enough to shoot only for that reason!!!


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 20, 2017)

ecka said:


> Ditboy said:
> 
> 
> > 35mm EF-S would be the equivalent of a 50, so I think it will be a macro. The 60 (96 equiv) is nice, but having a 50 macro is good too. I'm sure the majority of Canon sales are for the crop sensor, so why not throw them some exclusive bones? FYI, I have used the EF-S 60 macro with my full frame Canons by using an extension tube.
> ...



A 60mm f/2 crop macro lens???
Tamron may have the lens you are looking for.


----------



## picture-maker (Mar 20, 2017)

If you have an EOS with a crop sensor that has Auto ISO, try this.

Fit an EF-S 24mm STM f2.8. Set the camera to manual, set the camera to Auto ISO, set the shutter speed to 500, set the aperture to f10. Now focus on an item 10 feet away. Then switch the lens to manual focus.

Now you are ready to go and enjoy composing great pictures.

Just concentrate on the composition and ignore everything else, when you are happy - press the shutter button.

Your will take perfectly exposed pictures because you are using Auto ISO.
Your will take perfectly sharp pictures because of the shutter speed selected.
Everything will be in focus between 5 feet and infinity because of the aperture selected.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 20, 2017)

ecka said:


> What I meant is that you can compensate for the IS, but NOT for the aperture.
> Yes, it's all about your priorities. Just do not make statements like "my priorities are more important than anyone's"
> Tripods and flashes are not the only alternatives for IS.
> Hand held video needs IS ... who's arguing?
> ...



His whole point was that in many cases you cannot compensate for the IS, and he listed several examples. The ironic thing is you're (implying, technically, rather than) stating that "your priorities are more important than his" by making sweeping statements that IS isn't important because you "can compensate for it"(even though you often can't).

Isn't it great that there's a huge lens portfolio out there to choose from? That's the real reason I went into Canon instead of Nikon or anyone else.


----------



## slclick (Mar 20, 2017)

There has been a whole hell lot of photography without IS than there has with . Like I tell my kids, we got along just fine without________. It's a perk, enjoy it if you must be it's not needed just wanted.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > What I meant is that you can compensate for the IS, but NOT for the aperture.
> ...



Thanks to both and a good discussion here. There's a misconception that people are all-in on either faster max aperture or IS. The world isn't so black and white.

I generally prefer IS over speed because what I shoot is rewarded with such gear. I do a lot of capturing my life, travels, etc. in poorly lit places where I climb the ISO dial and things aren't moving so much. For me, IS is the better call but I fully appreciate others see it different and have different needs.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2017)

slclick said:


> There has been a whole hell lot of photography without IS than there has with . Like I tell my kids, we got along just fine without________. It's a perk, enjoy it if you must be it's not needed just wanted.



That would be like someone in 1908 telling their friend "Man has traveled a whole hell lot further on the horse than we ever have in a horseless carriage." 

Technology advances as time goes on, and we'd be wise to avail ourselves of it if it's useful. That does not make us soft or lack competence -- it just makes us resourceful.

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> That would be like someone in 1908 telling their friend "Man has traveled a whole hell lot further on the horse than we ever have in a horseless carriage."
> 
> Technology advances as time goes on, and we'd be wise to avail ourselves of it if it's useful. That does not make us soft or lack competence -- it just makes us resourceful.
> 
> - A



Forget horses and cars. This is more like saying we got along just fine without washing machines and dryers. Technically we did. This is much better, and almost everyone who lived without agrees, and just about no one pines for the days when you had to literally wash all your clothes by hand, or says it was "more pure".


----------



## ecka (Mar 20, 2017)

Nininini said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > And why would I need a DSLR for this kind of "fun"? Why not just use your phone?
> ...



I don't shoot f/16, but I thought that you do, to get everything in focus, which is why a phone or a Point&Shoot camera could be perfect for those sunny days of "fun" , because shooting f/16 while not even looking, kind of tells us how much you care about the result and quality .
And for the rest, you must be confusing me with someone else. I've said it before, fast EF-S primes make little sense to me, just like replacing them with an IS.


----------



## ecka (Mar 20, 2017)

Luds34 said:


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



Of course not. I wrote "EF", didn't I?


----------



## slclick (Mar 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a whole hell lot of photography without IS than there has with . Like I tell my kids, we got along just fine without________. It's a perk, enjoy it if you must be it's not needed just wanted.
> ...



Flawed analogy. A lens is a lens. You might as well as said a rocket. Your statement alludes to ALL lenses having IS with that type of comparison. True resourcefulness is shooting without IS lol. fwiw, I like it on certain lenses. Lenses I own, actually that would be 3 out of 8. But if any outside of the 100-400 didn't have it, I wouldn't think twice.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 20, 2017)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



What would I have given to add IS to my Pentax 6x7 back in the eighties ?!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2017)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



You're correct and you can beat up the analogy all you like, but the point is still valid -- we may not need certain tech but it unlocks the ability for us to do more. 

And keep in mind that something you file under 'the very basics I need to do the job' may have been similarly deemed to be an unnecessary perk by the photographers that came before _you_. Times change and our expectations of technology change.

And FTR, I'm not in the camp of spec-list obsessives that melt down if Canon doesn't keep pace with competitors on feature set items like IBIS, 4K, eye AF detection, etc. -- I just think IS in particular is peachy.  (My count: I have IS on 6 of my 8 lenses personally, only my 40 pancake and venerable 50 f/1.4 USM lack IS.)

- A


----------



## ecka (Mar 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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



Guys, let's be honest. We choose IS for different reasons than fast aperture. Why are you trying to tell me that a "horse" and a "donkey" are interchangeable? They serve different purposes. You like "donkeys" more, I understand that. I just don't need IS for 90% of what I shoot. I'm fine with shooting landscapes at F6.3 on FF without the IS, or using F1.8-F2.8 in low light.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 20, 2017)

IS is a tool. If you like it for what you are doing at the moment, use it..... If you don't like it, turn it off....

It is better to have a tool and not need it, than to need it and not have it.


----------



## ecka (Mar 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> IS is a tool. If you like it for what you are doing at the moment, use it..... If you don't like it, turn it off....
> 
> It is better to have a tool and not need it, than to need it and not have it.



Or just use a different tool while you don't need that one


----------



## slclick (Mar 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> IS is a tool. If you like it for what you are doing at the moment, use it..... If you don't like it, turn it off....
> 
> It is better to have a tool and not need it, than to need it and not have it.



Ok, that is reasoning I accept and agree with. I stand corrected. IS is good! (I never said it wasn't)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2017)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > IS is a tool. If you like it for what you are doing at the moment, use it..... If you don't like it, turn it off....
> ...



Now apply that same logic to tilty flippy screens. Works for that, too. 

- A


----------



## hne (Mar 21, 2017)

picture-maker said:


> If you have an EOS with a crop sensor that has Auto ISO, try this.
> 
> Fit an EF-S 24mm STM f2.8. Set the camera to manual, set the camera to Auto ISO, set the shutter speed to 500, set the aperture to f10. Now focus on an item 10 feet away. Then switch the lens to manual focus.
> 
> ...



No. It won't be in focus. The resolution at 5 feet and infinity will be reduced to roughly the equivalent of 1.5Mpx. Sure, clearly enough to not be limiting for recognizing people, but you would have issues telling me it's sharp.

I don't have the EF-S 24/2.8, but I followed your method with a Sigma 18-35/1.8 A set at 24mm (OK, 23 according to EXIF), f/10 on a 70D in manual mode with auto ISO (evaluative metering) and an AF target measured out by 160cm (5.25 ft) office desks and got.... let's just say less than stellar results.
So, what's the company logo on that mug placed 155 centimeter (5 ft) from the sensor? Hint: it's printed in a rather bright orange.

Btw, I wouldn't say it's overly sharp either. There is actually very little change to the mug if you downsample the image to 1000x1500 pixels and then upsample it again.

There are lots of ways to get acceptably sharp photos but this is not one of the better ones.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 21, 2017)

picture-maker said:


> If you have an EOS with a crop sensor that has Auto ISO, try this.
> 
> Fit an EF-S 24mm STM f2.8. Set the camera to manual, set the camera to Auto ISO, set the shutter speed to 500, set the aperture to f10. Now focus on an item 10 feet away. Then switch the lens to manual focus.
> 
> ...



The idea that everything will be in focus at f/10 doesn't tally with my experiences. Of course what we're discussing is whether subjects are "acceptably sharp", which means different things to different people. Remember, whatever the aperture, there is a plane of focus and then a zone either side where things may seem as sharp (viewed at a given output size etc) - it's not the case that everything outside the "in focus" zone is blurred, and everything inside it is sharp - things get less sharp the further from the plane of focus you get, however deep the depth of field. And in my experience even subtle differences can throw a picture, when the plane of focus is not where I wanted it (so, say the focus is just behind the subject, even at a narrow aperture, the subject will seem less sharp than the background and that leaps out as an error to me).

I appreciate some people want to think about as little as possible when taking photographs, and that's perfectly valid. But talking about 'composition' as though it doesn't involve shutter speed, focus, depth of field etc. is a narrow view, and misses a lot of the possibilities your relatively expensive DSLR can offer. Someone above said 'why not just use a phone?' and they have a point. Sure, a DSLR can provide better image quality than a phone in many (most) circumstances, but if the style of shooting is bright daylight, everything in focus, then a small sensor camera (including phones) is not a bad choice.

And once again, each person's choice may be valid for them, but I would say a DSLR isn't a great choice overall for a point and shoot experience. When I first got one, I was frustrated by some shots looking great and others not. I had to learn how to use the camera in order to get the results I wanted - these are fairly complex devices, after all. If you want a fire and forget experience, other devices are more forgiving. What I can't stand is people who clearly are interested in photography, but pretend that eschewing certain modern technological advantages is 'purer'. Not using IS doesn't make one a better photographer, nor does turning everything to auto make compositions better.


----------



## Talys (Mar 21, 2017)

picture-maker said:


> If you have an EOS with a crop sensor that has Auto ISO, try this.
> 
> Fit an EF-S 24mm STM f2.8. Set the camera to manual, set the camera to Auto ISO, set the shutter speed to 500, set the aperture to f10. Now focus on an item 10 feet away. Then switch the lens to manual focus.
> 
> ...



Sorry if I sound overly critical, but this sounds like a terrible idea. It's just saying: "If you care about nothing but keeping the picture in focus, step down your aperture to a tiny pinhole and lots of stuff will be in focus."

Just to point out the obvious, why use a 2.8 prime, if you're going to shoot at f10? Why not just use a 5.6 zoom kit lens with IS? It will produce about as good pictures stepped down that far anyways, and IQ can't possibly be at the top of you mind, if you're using auto ISO to control exposure. 

But the biggest problem with auto ISO is that ISO 400+ gives you pictures of a quality MUCH worse than ISO 100. At ISO 800, 1600 the noise is horrible. But almost as bad, most Canon bodies that are "consumer" priced -- I think every xxxD -- is going to constrain ISO to jumps in doubled increments - 100 200 400 800 1600 3200 6400. That means exposure jumps in are equivalent to full stops (each jump in iso allows twice/half as much light, just like a full f stop). So some of your pictures will be underexposed, and some of your pictures will be overexposed.

If your goal is to have a very deep depth of field, why not use Aperture Priority and vary shutter speed instead? If it's too dark to hold a _24mm_ still at a low ISO, you're never going to get an amazing picture anyways. If you want brainless, why not turn on touch shutter, turn the dial to the green square, and touch whatever you want focused?

And anyways, 1/500 is such a crazy, arbitrary shutter speed. Why 1/500 on 24mm lens? You should be able to go much slower even without IS. With 4-stop IS on short focal lengths, I regularly take handheld shots at 1/15 and 1/30 that are perfectly focused. With 3-stop IS, 1/60 is still very easy to get 2 good to perfect shots out of every 3. 1/500 is also too fast for a lot of speedlites/strobes, and too slow to capture a lot of things that are moving.

But anyways, this defeats the entire point of an ILC/DSLR investment. You don't need a DSLR to make a clear, in-focus photograph. You need a DSLR to have the sort of control to create the best photograph you can, and you invest in other gear to help make the most of whatever/wherever you are. If looking at the brainless EV +/- is too much work, much less checking the histogram... I would suggest saving a whole bunch of money and not using a DSLR  

Not to mention, not wasting time and money on 35mm 2.8 prime lens, whatever that M may mean


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 30, 2017)

By the way, STM motor makes no sense in a dedicated macro lens where *real* FTM support is a must.  I always try to focus before turning the camera on and with the STM motor this is not possible. :'(


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> By the way, STM motor makes no sense in a dedicated macro lens where *real* FTM support is a must.  I always try to focus before turning the camera on and with the STM motor this is not possible. :'(



+1. Focus by wire is not ideal for stills, and that's doubly so for macro work. 

But at least give Canon some credit: the priciest STM lens I can see at B&H is $599 for the 24-105 non-L. Canon is not jamming STM / FBW focusing on to the better lenses like Sony is. I am appalled that Sony is asking for ~ $2k for FBW lenses when Canon and Nikon can deliver far better FTM mechanical focusing for the same (or in many cases, lower) prices.

- A


----------

