DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Disappointed with Canon

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 5,406
Re: Not that Disappointed with Canon

MAC wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

m100 wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

m100 wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

The 32mm f/1.4 (50mm f/2.3 FF equivalent) is twice the price of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and only offers a huge advantage over the fastest two stops of its range.

About the only reason to stop down the EF-M 32mm is to get greater DOF ?

I did find some low cost ND filters that work fine for slower shutter speeds.

Have to use an adapter though.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089487-REG/vu_filters_vsnd155_55mm_sion_1_stop_nd.html

In my case I find a 22mm (35mm FFE) more natural as a standard lens than 32mm (50mm FFE), and I use 100mm on the R for portraits, so restricted depth of field at 32/50mm field of view isn't that important to me. I already have an EF 50mm for my EOS R, and I've not thought it worthwhile to upgrade it to the RF mount model so I'm even more reluctant to spend twice as much as that RF lens on a 32mm for APS-C.

I am thinking the RF 50mm f/1.8 is kinda like the EF 50mm f/1.8 ?

Came back from a car show after using my EF 50mm f/1.8 STM on the 6D and after looking at the photos threw my EF 50mm hard on a concrete floor.

It bounced like a ball and landed in the corner of the room and I swore I would never use that lens again.

Later I found it and tried it. Still worked. Great lens.

Never once felt like throwing my EF-M 32mm at the floor though.

With all that glass in it the 32mm would bust all to pieces ?

The RF lens is supposed to have better edges than the EF lenses and be pretty good stopped down beyond f/2.8 (f/1.7 APS-C equivalent). At that point i suspect my EOS R 30Mpx sensor will start to give more pleasing results with my 30 year old lens than my 24Mpx M100 sensor would with the 32mm and i don't really want to spend nearly £500 to find out for sure. Generally speaking I'd want to stop down a bit more than f/1.7 APSC (f/2.8 FF) for cars, and would definitely pack an ultrawide.

The RF f/1.8 lens should bounce about as well as the EF STM lens and a lot better than the mkii (not that I'm tempted to try). I'd be more worried about denting the thin metal skin of the 32mm if it has one like that of the 22mm. At least the RF-S lenses are all plastic.

I've owned five 50's

I concluded that f4.5 - f8 was where I noticed the sharpness wow - but why bother, use a zoom instead

with my m32 f1.4, I see a sharpness wow at f1.4

no brainer for me at $399

If that field of view and a restricted depth of field is important to you, the EF-M lens could well be worth double the price of the RF lens or 4x the price of the EF lens.

My use of that field of view would mainly be English Lake District landscapes, and f/4.5 - 8 (f/2.8 - 5 in APS-C terms) is, if anything, not stopped down far enough.  Even the grey import price of £430 is too much to tempt me.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
MAC
KEG
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
KEG
KEG
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow