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

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.

From what I have seen, the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is exceptionally good value. I am very tempted to buy a M50 partly in order to get it. It seems so good that it is almost surprising that Canon decided to make it in circumstances where they stand to make much more money by pushing people towards the EOS R system. As an M shooter you should be bloody glad that it is available at a very reasonable cost. I am amazed that anyone would think that Canon needs to reduce the price of it to make it more attractive.

(Full disclosure: I would also pick up the EF-M 11-22 and EF-M 22 which are both exceptional value for money)

The RF 35 is also good value, for sure, but you are comparing apples with oranges. It is not at all dissimilar to the EF 35mm f/2 IS lens, though, which has long been available for a not dissimilar price. There is no equivalent available for canon crop cameras and there almost certainly never will be. Fuji come close but they don't have a full frame system to protect / entice customers to.

The bottom line is that wide aperture, wide angle lenses that don't weight a ton (I'm looking at you, Sigma 24 Art) is one of the biggest draws of full frame cameras. Rather than be annoyed you should be glad that Canon has made that option available to you if you want it at a reasonable cost. Happy with the relatively wide aperture EF-M 22? Great! Want an exceptional 50mm--ish f/2.2-ish (equivalent) lens - you are lucky to have the EF-M 32 (ask EF shooters). Want wider aperture at that angle of view - upgrade to the RP and RF 35.