Back2M
•
Regular Member
•
Posts: 367
Re: EF-M 32mm f/1.4 ... comparisons
Marco Nero wrote:
007peter wrote:
I previously dismiss EOS-R and the RF lens, but the latest rumor of a smaller / cheaper RP has made me reconsider and studying the RF line up. One things struck me as rather unfair is this:
$499 RF 35mm F/1.8 IS STM MACRO has Stabilization + 0.5x Magnification (305g)
where as we get
$479 EF-M 32mm F/1.4 No Stabilization, 0.25x Magnification (235g)
I would gladly trade 1/3 stop faster F/1.4 → F/1.8 for more useful Stabilization and 0.5x Magnification. While you don't need IS in 32mm ~ 35mm focal length, it does help when you shooting continuous video/vlog. The extra weight is also rather minimal.
I'm slightly annoyed by Canon's pricing structure; you definitely get more Value for Money buying RF lens. If Canon can squeeze in both IS and 0.5x Macro to a RF 35/1.8, why not the EF-M 32/1.4? Perhaps, canon should reduce the price of 32/1.4 to make it more attractive.
Just a 0.02 rant.
Canon have a long and well established history of not supplying Image Stabilization with bright prime lenses that have a moderate to wide focal length. If you contact them directly, they'll tell you that it adds to the cost and that they don't consider it necessary for fast/bright lenses. This is why their EF lenses seldom supported IS and it's why the expensive new RF lenses seldom require it. Those EF/RF lenses were designed for use on a Full Frame camera... which has a much larger sensor that can capture several times more light in the same exposure length.
.
Image Stabilization is necessary on slower and longer lenses. Look at the EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens. That's a wide lens but it has a small aperture of f/4 which makes it quite slow. At f/4.5 when using 22mm it's going to risk a blurred shot so they had to use Image Stabilization.
.
Now let's take a look at the RF 32mm f/1.8 IS STM lens. It's a moderately bright lens but Canon are selling it as an all-in lens that can be used for <cough> "Macro" and as a general use lens for travel and architecture. The sample pictures show shots taken handheld at night. The larger FF sensor on the EOS R offers more light but f/1.8 is still not what I would consider to be "Fast" compared to wider apertures. Canon had to add Image Stabilization to this lens for the benefit of it's main feature as a <cough> "Macro" lens... Anyone shooting Macro knows that smaller apertures will often be needed... and that means Image Stabilization is essential.
.
Finally, let's take a sideways glance at the new EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens. It has no Image Stabilizer. Yet it's potentially Canon's sharpest lens... It's as sharp (or sharper) than the EF 35mm f/1.4 II USM lens and just a fraction of the price. Canon will tell you that you don't need I.S. on a lens this fast. At f/1.4 you can shoot handheld in extemely low light using 1/60 sec exposures. If your hands are steady you can shoot at 1/40 sec or if they're not so steady you can shoot at 1/80 sec. But you have much more flexibility in lowlight and that's without an Image Stabilizer.
.
On longer lenses with greater focal lengths of 200-400mm you really do need Image Stabilization. Look around on the internet and you'll see comments from owners of the EF 100mm f/2.8 lenses (the non-L versions with no Image stabilizer)... and you'll see just how many of them complain that they wished they'd bought the L-version with the I.S.. And the same applies to users of the EF 400mm Primes with no IS... they bought this lens but they have to use it on a tripod. You won't hear the same complaints from the owners of the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS lens or the 100-400mmL lenses with I.S..
.
I would NOT want to trade aperture on the 32mm f/1.4 lens because at f/1.8 the bokeh will be diminished and the lens capability in lowlight (to actually gather light) will be lowered. I can take pictures in what I thought was ridiculously low light with the 32mm lens and only use low ISO 200 to 400. If I'd taken those pictures with a slower lens my subjects would be moving or I'd need to use a much higher ISO setting (eg 3200 or higher). Bokeh inclusive images would be sharp but they would not likely be as beautiful. All an Image Stabilizer does is steady the optical train on the lens... it won't slow down a person dancing or a pet dog that is walking. This is where faster glass + faster shutter speeds beats slower glass with Image stabilization. As for video and vlogging, I thought there was already in-camera stabilization you could use. It crops but it stabilizes. An optical image stabilizer is better used for stills though it is superior.
.
The 32mm lens will someday drop in price but only marginally. If you don't need it straight away, then hold out and see what happens. But if you do have use for it, this lens is worth every penny when you compare it to its full frame companions.
.
M = cheaper system with cheaper lenses.
R = premium new tech with premium new lenses.
.
They had to release an affordable lens upon release or the EOS R system would be tagged a luxury camera - especially with the price of those new L-series RF lenses. They made the 35mm f/1.8 lens cheaper by sticking in a cheaper STM focusing system instead of a more expensive USM focusing system. The focus works great, especially with the new DPAF sensors. But that RF lens is cheap for several reasons. Take a look at a picture of it. It looks like it should be an EF-M lens.
Canon's non-L lenses, be it EF or EF-M, are where the bang for the buck is. Especially non-L primes.
RF 35 and EF-M 32 and EF 50 f/1.8 all come to mind, for what they are.
They'll be more non-L RF lenses, and, they'll be a mesh of new tech, without premium price, or weight. That's where folks like myself sit up a little taller in the chair and pay attention. That RF 24-240 looks pretty good. Should be optically superior to Sony's version as Canon produces far more optics IE they know what they're doing.
I have a feeling Canon will have some wonderful lenses for the R mount, both L, and otherwise. They make a product for everyone.
