Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system

thunder storm wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

noisephotographer wrote:

Actually I maybe regret buying the 32mm f/1.4. The depth of field is very shallow at f/1.4 (the Eos M50's autofocus is also not accurate enough for f/1.4 photos of small objects)

Must be with small objects only, as the M50 is able to handle a thin DOF otherwise.

and it doesn't have image stabilization, so maybe the 35mm f/2 IS would have been the better choice for me as I like taking photos in low-light. It would be great, if Canon would release an Eos M camera with image stabilization. Panasonic and Olympus have in-built image stabilization in entry-level mirrorless cameras for years.

I have the 35mm f/2.0 IS USM, and this (beside the price) is exactly the reason i am not buying the ef-m 32mm. Furthermore: i do believe the 32mm f/1.4 is very good, but the sigma 30mm f/1.4 for Sony aps-c isn't bad either.

I understand a lot of folks are happy with the ef-m 32mm as it is a lot better than "the kit lens". Still i am wondering if we would arrange a double blind test how many of these people would be able to distinguish pictures of the ef-m 32mm from pictures of the sigma 30mm f/1.4. Probably not so many, as the differences between those lenses are much smaller than the difference with "the kit lenses". In this way seeing the 32mm as the lens revitalizing the M system might need some perspective.

Still: it is a very appealing lens, and if there comes a M5mkII with IBIS and other features at a price more appealing than the child of the a6400 and a6500, i will definitely get one.

Still i think a6400 AF - as for me AF is important - will win from the difference between the 30mm and 32mm.

I watched this video again comparing the 32mm with the RF 50mm f/1.2 and the EF35mm f/2.0 IS USM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFF46hZkxcw

I also played around with the comparison tool here between the sigma 30mm f/1.4 on Sony and the 32mm.....

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-ef-m-32mm-f1-4-review/2

.... and actually the difference between those two lenses was impressive enough to wait 463 euro's longer before getting the child of the A6400&A6500 (maybe i should say: i will likely raise my budget). You'll never know if Sony will release it within a reasonable period anyway.

It arrived today, i took a view shots, and these where my first impressions:

- Bokeh seams to be better than i thought. I was afraid it would be still a bit harsh sometimes, but i have to say i am not disappointed so far.

- For portraits you have to get more close than i would prefer to get enough sensor resolution to be able to count the eyelash hairs one by one.

- I shot between f/1.4 and f/2.0, and although it is sharp there seams to be less contrast than i would have preferred.

The first thing is nice. The second one is just the nature of the lens, it just isn't the the ideal focal length for head and shoulders portraits. It is give and take: the advantage is having a more all round focal length.

The third one is a big thing. I hope my observations so far aren't representative for a long time experience with this lens. If i have to stop down all the way till f/2.8 to get good contrast i might send the lens back, no matter how light and convenient (it sure does!) it feels on the camera. It should at least perform equal at f/2.0 compared to the EF35mm f/2.0 IS USM at f/2.8, not only in terms of sharpness, but also for contrast.

My concerns about the contrast where nonsense. When the camera exposes for the face with face tracking it likes to have -1/3 or -2/3 EC.

I am not crazy about the AF performance so far. Focusing is slow. Even slower than other stm-lenses i have (EF 50mm, EF-s 24mm). And waaaay slower than the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and Canon 35mm f/2.0 on my M50. When the cameras AF is fooling around corrections are made much quicker with these lenses, while the slow 32mm AF adds extra annoyance to the experience.

It also seams to have a tendency to pick the background when it has more contrast, even with face detection detecting a face. I don't know why, but with the 32mm it seams to be worse than with other lenses.