picktherighttoolforthejob wrote:
This is a wonderful post, and full of important detail and necessary nuance for M users shooting in low-light environments.
You sure have the right name to be replying to this thread! I just hope my post wasn't overly long-winded and that it might be useful to others. For example, I've ONLY used CPL filters at maximum strength. But I didn't want banding in the sky for those shots so I turned the effect right down but still benefited from using theCPL filter. A post I made a couple of years ago when I took a picture of my wife in a car at night with the 11-22mm lens showed me it was capable of nice detail and results at 22mm. So I applied it in those daylight shots in the mountains and the results appealed to me. If it wasn't for the constant experiments here and there, I'd have no idea if I'd have captured some of my favorite shots or not. By sharing, it might help others made decisions of their own without having to guess.
I have resisted purchasing the EF-M 32mm lens (for now) because of its lack of IS, because I own the EF-M 22mm lens...and I have had good luck with low-light image acquisition when utilizing the 5D-MkIII/EF 35mm f2.0 lens...a lens which of course has IS (but is much larger and heavier).
The demand for Image Stabilization
I can appreciate why people have become addicted to Image Stabilization on their cameras and lenses today. Every time Canon releases a new body, someone (everyone?) complains about a lack of IBIS on it. Canon painted themselves into a bit of a corner by declaring IBIS to be inferior to OIS and later doubled-down on this by claiming that it affects color and sharpness negatively. But I have a feeling this may soon change as there have been several light rumors that Canon may actually be looking to introduce IBIS (or their own form of it) in some type of future camera. I suppose time will reveal all.
.
Lack of IS on the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens
As for the EF 35mm f/2 IS lens (NOT the 32mm lens), it has an excellent reputation for sharpness. I feel they chose to add I.S. simply to cash in on the demand for it since this lens probably doesn't need it on a Full Frame camera. I can certainly appreciate why some people might want I.S. on the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens when you see them demanding it elsewhere. But it's one of those lenses that allows higher shutter speeds in low light. Even my EF-M 22mm f/2 is relatively "in the dark" in comparison. I used to use the EF-M 22mm for everything demanding low light performance and the results were were impressive. In fact, the wider FOV and superb clarity at f/2.2 makes the 22mm lens my absolute favorite lens for Astrophotography. Where it let me down was a dark restaurant that was literally underground, lit with random candles. It was so dark that I had to take the menu away from my table to try to read it near a candle. I later chipped a tooth on what turned out to be a metal straw in my drink. The place was absurdly dark and I simply couldn't get enough performance out of the EF-M 22mm f/2 lens... So I was pleased to see the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens eventuate. It surprised me that I was unable to work in that dark location. For visitors to Australia, the restaurant I was dealing with in the dark is called Mjolner . Bring a torch.
.
EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens - taken on a street at night (Candid shot of my friend's wife) - You'd think that this lens would cover everything in lowlight with an ability to take shots like this at night... but sometimes you need even more light.
.
That one time I blurred some shots from the 32mm lens...
But yes, I did have some motion-blur in just a couple of shots from the 32mm lens and when I reviewed my images at the end of my second day shooting with this lens, I discovered them to be blurred slightly after downloading them. They were pretty subtle so I didn't spot them as being blurred when reviewing images on the camera. But what I found out was that when using a Circular Polarizer in P-Mode, the camera dropped the exposure speed due to the darkened environment. The other thing I noticed was that each of these shots with a tiny bit of movement was the result of me taking a picture while physically walking or panning with the camera. Each of the blurred shots (and all those that weren't blurred) were taken at 1/60 sec. Now I knew that I could handhold shots at 1/40 without a problem. So the issue was that I had gotten overly confident with using Av-mode in daylight with Compact Cameras... but in this instance I was using Av-mode with a mirrorless M6 with a CPL filter on the lens. And where I really screwed up was when I then set the aperture to f/10. That was it. Just the aperture of f/10 was enough to ruin my shots.... because the smaller aperture and low ISO meant the lens was forced to compromise the shutter speed. And it picked a fairly safe 1/60 sec. Here's one of the shots from the set that tuned out fine because I'd stopped moving. You can see how bright the scene is too...
.
M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens - ISO 100 | f/10 | 1/60 sec + CPL filter
.
This is a sharp shot out of a set that were otherwise blurred ... because I forced the camera to lower the shutter speed by default... and then stupidly panned as I snapped shots without standing still.
.
5 Steps to disaster...
This darkened the scene enough that the camera dropped the shutter speed to what would have been a great exposure... if only I hadn't set the ISO by locking it down to ISO 100... which forced the camera to slow the exposure down the 1/60. With a wider lens, it wouldn't have mattered. But the 32mm lens becomes a 51.2mm lens on the APS-C sensor on the EOS M cameras.... and at 52mm an Image Stabilizer might have been useful with that conjunction of settings and shortcomings on my part. But does this lens need an Image Stabilizer? I honestly still don't think so. My blurred shots were the result of (1) a poor decision on my part - (2) combining a locked ISO, (3) a very slow aperture of f/10 that was entirely unnecessary, (4) darkening the whole scene with a CPL filter dialed up to maximum - and (5) moving about while in the process of making the exposures. Just avoid my 5-step mistake and you'll be fine. The f/1.4 lenses are capable on their own. Even DSLR users noted no improvements in image quality by adding I.S. to the EF 85mm f/1.4L i.S. USM lens... but it looks good on the pamphlets and people will buy it because it has I.S. Here' another shot taken at the same location just a few minutes later...
.
M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM - ISO 100 | f/7.1 | 1/125 sec + CPL filter
.
The fix was a more reasonable Aperture of f/7.1
.
It's pretty rare for me to get excited about a lens before it get released but I looked at the specs of this lens before it was released and had some very high expectations - mostly based on using another Canon EF L-seres lens that had a similar aperture. What surprised me was the clarity of the 32mm f/1.4 lens - which is something I've looked at in previous posts last year (so I probably don't need to rehash again here). The clarity and overall performance from it has attracted quite a bit of attention from other photographers. The only limitation would be the field of view.
.
FOV: The field of view of the 32mm lens compared with the EF-M 11-22mm lens. These two shots were taken with the camera locked down on a tripod.
.
bbb
.
32mm - 1/100 second - Clearly shot at night outside without needing beyond ISO 2500 - I did opt to use a small amount of noise reduction on the cloudy sky to remove a little grain.
32mm - 1/250 sec - to catch the bats in flight. All my other lenses tend to blur shots like this.
32mm -1/80th second. The illumination in this room was less than 1 candle in brightness.
32mm - 1/80th second. Traffic at night
32mm - 1/80 sec - shot taken handheld with camera raised over my head. Note that the little girl's face (which was the AF target zone) is perfectly in focus.
32mm - 1/60 second - The moon behind a smoldering Tiki torch (2x exposures - but exposure of the moon was still kept out of focus to accurately reflect the light in the scene). Check the ISO - just 320.
Your real-world photos posted here are fine examples. Thanks for posting.
Thank you to the others who left a message or a response... I started writing this post 3 days ago and kept my browser open for three days to try and convey the material I wanted...but it got a bit complicated because I found some of what i wrote to be repetitive and I also wanted to share information without it seeming in any way to be condescending to do so. Photography is ALWAYS an exploration. Some of the shots that I take might be considered too personal to share so I sometimes have to ask people of they'd mind me posting a picture of them. At least one member here complained that I was posting too many pictures of my wife's (clothed) breasts. I don't get it but hey, everyone loses out now. I try never to post an unflattering picture of other people although occasionally there's a person in the background with a silly look on their face .
.
Sometimes I take a picture that I think is technically good (eg exposure and composition is good) and sometimes I'll be fortunate to get access to good illumination that brings an image to life. If I think it looks nice enough to share, I will. Other times I share images that might seem mundane but they demonstrate an lens/camera capability that I wasn't previously aware of. I try to capture everything in-camera rather than have to do a lot of editing in post.
.
Most of the time, when I post images on the M-forum, it's just to share the shot with others so they know what their gear is capable of - of because I was surprised with the results that I got. Some people don't have an opportunity to push their cameras very far or perhaps they just use their gear for occasional images of day-to-day scenes. I like knowing that I can take certain lenses out with an M-Camera and (hopefully) capture beautiful landscapes like member HaroldC3 does with his own gear. Sure, my shots may not be as pretty but at least I know what the camera/lens combo is capable of before I leave the house. Most of the great shots out there were simply circumstantial, but the studio photographers can plan and execute shots with special lighting and be assured of excellent results almost every time.
.
I'm usually not moved by studio shots taken under professional lighting because if you reproduce the same setup, you get the same results yourself. For me, an interesting picture is often one that involves a random location, ideal clouds and lighting and a unique view or perspective. Everyone is different and we all have things that we like or don't care to see. I tend to like landscapes and animals because there's very little we can to to prepare scenes like those... / ...We're at the mercy of the elements. Occasionally I'll see family snapshots that wow me posted by members here who don't have access to exotic locations. I love the tropics but I haven't been there since 2004. I'll get back there eventually and I'll be bringing these lenses with me.
.
I'll post another reply her in relation to the 11-22mm lens in a moment... so as not to overcrowd my reply with too many images.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.
