EF-S 35mm f/2.8 macro IS...

Anyone out there using this as a standard/walk around lens on an M series camera?

I'm considering it over the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 because of the IS.

Thanks in advance,

JD

Consider the 28 ef-m macro too if you want IS. IT's a great walkabout lens with IS, has built in lights in you do macro.

getochkn said:

Consider the 28 ef-m macro too if you want IS. IT's a great walkabout lens with IS, has built in lights in you do macro.

Click to expand...

+1. Only if OP does not have APSC DSLR.

My 28mm M macro is my most used lens. Walk-around and landscape. Sharp enough for cropping and distortion-free so great zipping.

If you have only an M body the EFM 28 macro is reportedly quite good. I don't have one - yet.
If you have (or plan to have) either EF or EF-S bodies, you might want to give a close look at the 35 f/2 IS. I do have and like it a lot on my M bodies, 80D, and 6D. It does not have macro, though.

+1

I took this lens (35 f/2 IS) with M5 to vacation and enjoyed a lot.

Another option is EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM. To my eye, IQ from this lens looks bit better compare to EF-M 28mm macro. I could be wrong but that's what I found.

I prefer 28mm on M body.

jadphoto said:

Anyone out there using this as a standard/walk around lens on an M series camera?

I'm considering it over the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 because of the IS.

Thanks in advance,

JD

Click to expand...

If you want the option to have more background blur i would choose ef-s 35mm f/2.8 macro over the ef-m 28mm f/3.5 macro.

If you don't need macro and don't do video i would choose the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM over the ef-s 35mm f/2.8 macro. If you do video the stm might be better than the USM though.

The only concern about 35mm as a walk around lens is there might be times you want to go wider. 35mm is often to tight for architecture. 35mm is perfect for indoors and 2 persons in the frame, or outdoors and more persons in the frame. It is also nice for environmental portraits, or even head&shoulder shots as long as you are familiar enough with "the model" to get a bit close. Getting closer your background blurs more. I personally would prefer 35mm more than something wider as a standard walk around lens for getting more background separation.

charlieY said:

Another option is EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM. To my eye, IQ from this lens looks bit better compare to EF-M 28mm macro. I could be wrong but that's what I found.

Click to expand...

I forgot about the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS and it was quite good - possibly as good as the EF 35 f/2 IS. I recently sold it as I hardly ever used it after buying the EF 35 f/2.

good choice as you can also adapt it to an EOS R camera if you consider FF in the future.. But for a walkaround lens on crop, the 28mm 2.8 IS should be a bit better FL, i believe.

Thanks to you all for the well thought out answers.

I do have the EF 28mm f.2.8 IS, I need to use it more before I pick up a 35mm of any stripe.

I have considered the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS as I do shoot full frame (5D Mk III and 6D). It seems a bit bulky judging by Camera Comparison.com. Does it balance well, a little bulk isn't a deal breaker for me. And it looks to be only a bit bigger than the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 macro IS, which I realize I can't use on my full frame.

Thanks again, all of your input is appreciated.

JD

jadphoto said:

Thanks to you all for the well thought out answers.

I do have the EF 28mm f.2.8 IS, I need to use it more before I pick up a 35mm of any stripe.

I have considered the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS as I do shoot full frame (5D Mk III and 6D). It seems a bit bulky judging by Camera Comparison.com. Does it balance well, a little bulk isn't a deal breaker for me. And it looks to be only a bit bigger than the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 macro IS, which I realize I can't use on my full frame.

Thanks again, all of your input is appreciated.

JD

Click to expand...

@f/2.8 the EF 35mm IS USM performs much better. It is usable on full frame as you mentioned....

I would say:

If you really need IS >> go for EF 35mm IS USM.

If you really need to travel light >> go for the 32mm f/1.4

I would not sacrifice the performance of the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM and its compatibility with full frame for the little weight saving compared to the EF-s macro.

The EF-s 35mm f/2.8 macro is a nice option for those who are on a budget and something brighter than the kit lens, want to do some macro, but don't want to buy 2 extra lenses. It is also a nice option for video. If your budget is not that limited and you are not interested in video and macro, there are better options.

For me the 35mm f/2.0 IS USM is actually the light weight option when i found my sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 to heavy.

charlieY said:

+1

I took this lens (35 f/2 IS) with M5 to vacation and enjoyed a lot.

Another option is EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM. To my eye, IQ from this lens looks bit better compare to EF-M 28mm macro. I could be wrong but that's what I found.

I prefer 28mm on M body.

Click to expand...

I am using the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM lens as my walkaround lens. It is lighter than the 35 f/2 IS (290 to 335 grams) and I prefer the 28mm focal length to either 35mm or 32mm. The IQ is good for me.

Sorry, the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM is 260 grams