MyM6II
•
Senior Member
•
Posts: 2,424
Re: $499 RF 35/1.8 have (IS + Macro) but not in a $479 EF-M 32/1.4 (annoying)
thunder storm wrote:
MyM3 wrote:
The EF-M 32mm should be compared to a 50mm FF lens (not a 35mm).
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eoszine.nl%2F2260193%2FEF-M-32mm-f-1.4-STM.html
Quote:
“The image quality (sharpness, distortion, corner blur, vignetting, chromatic aberration) is comparable to an RF 50 mm f / 1.2 on an EOS R. And that is our benchmark for bright fixed focal length lenses.”
———
As you may have guessed. I am not annoyed by the EF-M 32mm lens. 😃 It’s a bargain.
Actually the same person, Pieter Dhaeze, says the RF 50mm f/1.2 is sharper in this video at 11:10.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFF46hZkxcw&t=10m51s
Ja, die RF lens is ook ietsje scherper, maar je moet echt wel op 100% gaan kijken wil je dat verschil zien.
Translation: That RF lens is a little bit sharper, however, you will have to compare at 100% to be able to see the difference.
Watching the comparison Pieter Dheaze makes at 100% in this video i would say the RF lens outperforms the ef-m lens, just like Pieter Dheaze did himself. Fortunately: having this video everybody can make its own conclusions here.
The statement you quoted from Pieter Dheaze only stated these lenses can be compared. Not one ore the other is better. Of course there he is suggestion more, but he is not saying it. He says the 32mm can be compared to the benchmark, and this is true for every lens in this universum.
Actually to me the 32mm seems sharper. But the samples are not the same size and the 32mm photo is a bit overexposed, so hard to say for sure.