Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon EF-S 35mm f2.8 IS STM Macro coming soon.
#11
Quote:Try it on a FF body through an extension tube - it might work. The working distance might become a problem though.
I already have that for FF (the 35mm f2.8 equivalent FOV wise), the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5. Since it is a 55mm lens, the working distance is bigger. Not IF though, so the extension of the lens reduces the working distance becomes 5-6cm at !:1, which a much larger lens diameter providing shading, and no built in LEDs.

 

I just think being able to do the same with the EOS M might be neat.
#12
Maybe I am on of the rare that love macro lenses, I own and frequently use a macro lens, but very  I do macro.

why because of the colors and optical quality, especially at close  focus distance, for close head-shots on full frame I can immediately tell which one was taken with my 100mm macro, I did once a comparo for portraits vs 24-105L at f4 both the difference was abvious.

Hope this one would be on the same level of optical quality

#13
Late to the thread, but I'm very interested in this. I almost got an M for its similar macro, but I can't justify getting an M.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#14
Maybe I shouldn't name names but I happened to glance at Petapixel's little demo of the lens being used on a diamond ring with and without using the built in lights.  Well, yeah, we get what the lights are for, but I couldn't believe all of the sarcasm and criticism of the lens.  Now, it may be some time before I get my hands on one, but how can you complain if this lens comes even close to the quality of Canon's other macros, and at this price point? 

 

I was a little afraid I would be lamb-basted for my unabashed enthusiasm for this lens w/o actually having any experience with it.  My concern is not with the working distance, BTW, I just with manufacturers would give you all of the pertinent specs for their products.  It's nothing unexpected, and I didn't bother to see if the hood comes with the lens or not.  I shouldn't have to!  With a lens like this, I know from experience that you want to have the hood to protect the front of the lens from collisions.  I did see that the sell an optional lens cap that will fit both on the hood, and and the lens.  I know Canon does not normally hand out hoods with their non-L lenses, but this is a special case since the lens is not fully functional with out the hood, so maybe the do include the hood...then make up for it by selling you the special cap!

 

But that's just a little griping.  I am totally hoping to get my hands on one!

#15
There is so little working distance and risk of shading I wouldn't use a hood except for distant subjects, even if the built in lights might mitigate some of the shading concern. I find even a protection filter is too thick at times...

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#16
The hood is for when you use the lens for "infinity" stuff rather than macro. And when you want to use filters, like a pol. filter for instance.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)