DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

$499 RF 35/1.8 have (IS + Macro) but not in a $479 EF-M 32/1.4 (annoying)

Started Feb 7, 2019 | Discussions thread
007peter
OP 007peter Forum Pro • Posts: 12,933
Annoyance because Value/Money argument strongly tilt → R unfairly

Back2M wrote:  As a former 32mm owner, and R and RF 35 owner, the RF 35 is serious bang for your buck. It's the 22mm or the R system, that is, it's one of the R system's special powers (for the moment).  Canon's luring folks to the R system with it.

You are the ONLY GUY here who gets what I"m saying.

  • No, I'm not seeking an alternative lens suggestion
  • No, I'm not saying F/1.4 doesn't have advantage over F/1.8 with IS + Macro

What I am saying is that for a mere $20 difference, you get

  • Image Stabilization - critical for video
  • 0.5x Macro - however small, is way better than 0.25x on 32/1.4
  • There is no double that you far more MONEY VALUE buying RF > EF-M

Isn't the whole point of keeping EF-M is for portabile consumer and RF as premium full frame?  But when you judge a lens by its capability, RF lens is now offering more value for mony, more useful feature.

While I agree with previous suggestion that EF-M 28/3.5 Macro is a nice lens, it doesn't remove the fact that for I can buy a RF 35/1.8 IS STM (0.5x) Macro for just $499, yet a EF-M 32/1.4 (design for a cheaper consumer platform) lack these feature.

Like I say, it just an ANNOYANCE rant, nothing more.

 007peter's gear list:007peter's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Ali
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow