007peter wrote:
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.
.
I think you might be missing your own point here...
.
The RF 35mm lens is a cheapie. Canon needed to offer it to encourage sales from people who would otherwise balk at spending thousands on the RF L-series lenses. If this was the only lens on offer for the R system at launch that we all know they could have stuck a red ring on, added some seals and sold it for $1500+.
.
Back2M bought this lens with his EOS R and like myself noted that the similarities between the EF-M 32mm made for a compelling argument to stay with the EOS M because the image quality was there with the 32mm lens... along with creative freedom and flattering bokeh. The difference in focal lengths (one is designed for Full Frame mirrorless sensors and the other for APS-C mirrorless sensors) means they are not interchangeable nor can they be used on any other camera system. Yet they both produce very different focal lengths.
.
Image Stabilization is completely overrate (*and unnecessary) on an f/1.4 lens designed for APS-C mounts. And f/1.8 is just on the border of being too slow (hence Canon gave it an Image Stabilizer). What good is getting locked into an expensive system of high-priced lenses costing thousands of dollars unless you need Full Frame? Unless you're prepared to fork out that money for quality L-series RF glass, the only compelling lens on offer is this one.
.
RF 35mm = 35mm focal length (more distortion, false 'macro' ability)
EF-M 32mm = 51mm focal length (less distortion, great 'closeup' ability)
.
I'm a very big fan of the RF 32mm lens but the price has to be low to attract buyers. You seem disappointed that Canon is offering two lenses at almost the same price for two different mounts... and yet there were (and still are complaints) that the EF-M 32mm lens is "far too expensive" for some members to buy, even though they want it. There seems to be something wrong with the way members apply value to their lenses. I think the 32mm f/1.4 lens is a very important one for M users. They may not need it but it's extremely capable. On one hand M users feel the EF-M 32mm is too expensive and offers no I.S. - and yet the EF 35mm f/1.4 USM lens (at many times this price) has no I.S. and is considered to be the "Gold Standard" for L-series lenses. On the other hand the RF 35mm has an even wider field of view (much wider!) and is relatively slow glass compared to what could have been... hence it really needed the I.S. in order to be practical.
.
Feeling irritated that one new expensive system got a lens at the same price as our established M-system that happens to have Image Stabilization on it (because it needs it) suggests you might be looking at this all wrong.
.
The problems associated with the RF 35mm f/1.4 IS STM lens...
The RF 35mm f/1.4 STM lens has its own flaws. It performs best (sharpest) between f/2.8 and f/11... and this explains why an Image Stabilizer was essential. But it vignettes at f/1.8 to f/2.8 ... even showing up beyond f/4. One reviewer from a tech site covered this issue with detail last year and they described the vignetting as "significant". It can be controlled with in-camera correction but that means you have to shoot in JPEG. There's barrel distortion as well. Now barrel distortion is something you really don't want on a Macro lens. You can eliminate much of this with in-camera corrections but that means you have to shoot in JPEG. If you prefer to shoot RAW you'll need to deal with this problem later during processing. It's a singular lens with nothing else that compares to it. And it performs very well. I personally recommend it. But it has flaws like any lens does.
.
If you own an EOS R camera, buy the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM lens. This is something I recommended to another member responding in this thread and he likes it. But if you own an EOS M, by the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens. If you don't feel you need it, don't buy it.
.
But if I had to dump my other EF-M lenses and choose just one native lens for this mount, it would be the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens. And I think a few other owners of this lens here would probably agree to do the same. I can stand in the dark on a street corner at night and all my other EF-M lenses would fail to capture the scene - except for that one lens.
