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

mpressed wrote:

Back2M wrote:

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.

I so wanted to stay out of this thread and let Marco speak fro me... The RP to me is such a freaking annoyance. It was easy to sit back and justify ..i moved from FF full size dslr kits to the M5 and M lenses for the sake of size and weight and while still needing and hoping for a few fast primes and a couple fast zooms i would be a happy camper. The IQ of the M5 and many of the M lenses is great enough for the tradeoff of weight and size for me. I never want to go back to carrying a giant bag again.. When the R came out it was easy for me to continue to justify avoiding the temptation to have FF MILC, because of the size and weight was heading back towards dslr specs... and if i were to go the R route id do so only because of the lens offerings particularly the L lenses. Any one shooting canon for a period of time lows while there are some impressive non L lenses when comping ef to efL lenses there really is no comparisons (no need to chime in with the few exceptions that are out threw know there are some great EF lenses too) so to me the R was being positioned to be canons enthusiast plus to pro MILC set up. They should have maintained a predominantly L lens plan for a few years while continuing to roll out the M line for those that didn't want to spend the money or deal with the size weight factor. Dropping the RP in so soon is just causing confusion and annoyance to so many...and compounding it with what are relatively good but not great lenses to try and attract the enthusiast to buy is simply a money hungry move on canons part which may end up biting them in the butt as some M users may now hold off building their kits and waiting to see where canon puts it r&d money will the M grow or wait to see the maturity of the RP and mid quality lens lineup to go with the RP and future bodies in the same vain. Id much sooner pay R pricing for M cameras and lenses if the development was there. Happy to pay more for something small and great then another line of larger gear that has already been covered in the market by other manufacturers. If canon were to continue to develop the M line with a few tweak to the M5/6 they would have a body that rivals any MILC or DSLR, and if they would just complete the trilogy of fast primes and fast zooms (knowing they would be bigger then current M lenses but still overall a much smaller kit then any R kit will be) they would have a heck of a lot of happy M owners. Give me fast M glass and ill forgo FF for convenience at this point.

Even more annoying is just as i start to think the canon will start stepping up with the M and give me the lenses and development i need to believe i can finally start trading in all my EFL lenses. I truly believed over the next two years as more M (preferably better faster) lenses were released i would finally start trading in EFL and DSLR gear to finance them rather then going out of pocket.. now if fear that i may need to keep EF lenses around to cover certain needs, i still wont trade them in...thanks canon.

mp

Maybe yet another case for whom my theory may apply.