Getting up close: Canon EF-M 28mm macro hands-on review

Although I agree that the lens's 28mm (45mm equivalent) focal length results in shorter-than-desirable macro working distances, it has the corresponding advantage of placing the lights that are built into the lens farther off-axis from the lens itself. That may produce appreciably more pleasant lighting of small subjects.

Brilliant idea. I hope Canon will improve upon this in-lens lighting concept and introduce it to the EF line (of some lenses, especially macro lenses, and a similar 28/35mm EF).
Great lens when you don't have, or can't carry the billows and the macro ring light, especially!

"The MTF-50 result - better correlated with perceived sharpness - tells a slightly different story, indicating only around 875 line pairs per picture height resolved, which translates to ~4.6MP, or 19% of the total sensor resolution."

the M3 sensor is AA based 6000x4000 or 3000x2000 line pairs .. as it's maximum possible (less of course for the AA filter unless you are doing deconvolution filtering)

so wouldn't 875 be much larger than 19% of total resolving?

So I'm curious because 875lp/ph on an M3 sensor would render it .. well, as a piece of crap. and by your infinity pictures, it seems to be resolving far more than 875 would suggest.

this is a new lens test setup is it not? do you guys have an explanation on how you are testing and what you are using as a baseline?

default jpg will play a big role in determining what you come up with as an example, it would be interesting if we had as an comparison, even on the M3 - ie: this compared to the 22mm as far as your MTF setup.

Vindication! At last a lens that will make people take the EOS M seriously.

You seem to have confused working distance with MFD. The working distance (measured from the end of the lens) is 13mm or half an inch, not 3.7" and the Nikkor's is 35mm.

Would it be possible, just for once, to have a Canon product review that does not evoke or "shouts-out" to other products from other brands?

In this particular case...you do understand that the incorporated LEDs make this an unique product, making all "shout-outs" and cross-references non-applicable, right?

Why did DPR compare this lens to a Nikon DSLR-lens? It's not even close apples to apples comparison, now is it? There exist a mirrorless aps-c lens with almost the same FOV, same price-point, same maximum aperture, same size, same weight, same target group and yes macro too. Sony E-mount 30mm macro would have been a natural comparison.

still can't decide but getting close, its this M3 or A6000, reading this review I am now leaning more towards this, the images look amazing!!

For about $780, you get a handy macro system. The lights clinch the deal. I'm tempted!

Thorough evaluation, DPR. Thank you very much.

Page 2 says: "Canon is able to achieve a 1:1.2 reproduction ratio"

That should read 1.2, not 1:1.2.

Glad to see MTF50 and MTF10 test. Is this gonna be a tradition on DPR?

Another excellent addition to the collection of excellent EF-M lenses. I enjoy my EOS M and all the available lenses -- to me, this 28mm Macro is ultra special among them. My review: Wow!

Finally somebody releases an interesting affordable lens. If this performs in the same fashion as my trusty 40mm f2.8, I could even get a nice M3 for it. Good for Canon!

Great, but I really need a camera with a built in viewfinder.
Any chance, Canon?

This is effin fantastic. And I was just about to sell my eos-m. This could be my favorite lens of all time.

From the article above (page 3):
"Sadly, there's no ability to have just one LED on at full brightness and the other dimmed."

An easy fix for this is to get some 1 stop and/or 2 stop ND gel filter material (no need to spring for optical quality, unless you like throwing away money) and carefully cut it out into a 'C' shape to cover half of the ring light. Stick it on with some clear removable tape, and boom, you have more control over your "main" and "fill" lights. You are welcome.

"only around 875 line pairs per picture height resolved [...]"

How does this compare to Lens Rentals data? They measure 800-900+ on sensors with similar pixel count for top lenses on FF.

While this looks like a great option, I'm a bit baffled on the 28mm focal length. First, because it's just REALLY wide for a macro and forces extremely close working range. And second because this is only the second prime in EF-M mount and the other one is a 22mm. So this provides zero utility as a non-macro for most EOS M shooters. If it was a 55-60mm macro, it could double as a portrait lens and make a nice pair for the 22mm in a 2-prime kit. But who wants to carry a 22-28 pair of primes?

Still, the light idea is pretty cool.

Lead: "Thanks to built-in LEDs and very close focusing abilities, Canon's 28mm F3.5 for EOS M offers a great place to start learning more about shooting macro."

This really promotes the idea that (Canon) mirroless is for the beginners, and real photographers use real cameras. This matches my idea of what is the target group of EOS M system. It also tells a lot about the (general?) attitude regarding mirrorless systems.

I am writing this simply because I find it interesting.

Still waiting for a review of Canon's great EOS-M line of cameras. A few are already released and sold through US channels. Please review them, a lot are interested to see how they stack up to it's competition (mainly E mount).

Cheap, light, inexpensive.. hard not to like.

But seriously a shout out and link to sony here?

In defense of the micro-Nikkor 40 DX, it's a dSLR, F-mount lens. If the minimum focus distance was any shorter, you'd have to paint your subject onto the front element.

(That said, kudos to Canon here. I was expecting Nikon to do this first with a Nikon 1 macro with the LED ring light, but that died on the vine evidently. If you are going to have a mirrorless short macro lens with 1:1 or better, a built-in light is practically a requirement and I'm surprised it's not already a common feature.)

A user might be able to attach a smidgen of translucent tape to one of the LEDs?

"Second, because the field of view is on the wider side, you'll have to get really close, which means depth of field will be incredibly shallow."

That is a misleading statement when it comes to macro work. If shooting at the same reproduction ratio and at the same aperture, the depth of field functions independently of field of view. In other words, your depth of field can be incredibly shallow on any lens if you are using same reproduction ratio and aperture.

"because the field of view is on the wider side, you'll have to get really close, which means depth of field will be incredibly shallow"
That is not right. At close-up distances, the DOF only depends on the magnification ratio. So you will get the same DOF if you shoot with a lens having a longer focal length than this one, at a distance giving the same subject size (with the same aperture of course...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

"All the trump cards held by the Micro-Nikkor fold when other features of the EF-M 28mm Macro are brought in to consideration, though. First, even though it is a wider FOV lens, its nearest focus distance is 3.7", nearly 3" closer than the Micro-Nikkor. Even taking the slightly longer field of view of the Micro-Nikkor in to account, the Canon is able to achieve a 1:1.2 reproduction ratio in "Super Macro" mode over the Nikkor's 1:1."

I have this lens and the difference between 1:1 and 1:1.2 is not that great and certainly not worth being 3" closer if comparing it to the NIkkor. On specs alone, the Nikkor is a better macro. Having the lights is definitely a plus for focusing but they are not powerful enough to make much of a difference if your subject is beyond 1:2 or you are using a narrow aperture.

I like this lens, an all-purpose one with a semi-wide field of view combined with decent macro options.

Don't forgot about Pentax Macro lenses!!??