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

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.

Normally you pay quite a premium going from f1.8 to 1.4. It’s not cheap, but with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 you are getting a great lens for the price, a price an RF lens probably won’t match.

As a former 32mm owner, and R and RF 35 owner, the RF 35 is serious bang for your buck. It's the 22mm or the R system, that is, it's one of the R system's special powers (for the moment).

Canon's luring folks to the R system with it. It's sort of a nifty fifty for the R system. Worked on me, but I'm also a huge 35mm lover, which I didn't know ironically till I got the EOS M + 22mm and realized I'd been missing a good 35mm the whole time (which I'd previously dismissed).

The 32mm f/1.4 STM though, I should mention, is tack sharp at f/1.4 vs the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM isn't quite so. It's bokeh gets nervous until you stop down to f/2.8 vs the bokeh on the 32mm f/1.4 is perfect, and I mean perfect. Enviously good.

I wish Canon made an RF 50mm f/2.2 STM that is a blown up version of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM. I'd slap down $499 faster than you can blink if they did. No IS needed. Just tack sharp at f/2.2 which is what the 32mm f/1.4 STM represents.

Granted I use 35mm a heck of alot more than 50mm, but, a good 50mm is very, very, valuable. I suspect an RF 50mm f/1.8 is coming btw. Who knows when. Probably not soon. Adapter is handy for solving that problem.

But yes, the economics of non-L RF glass are going to be envious. Very curious what that RF 24-240 runs. If it's $799 or less, it's on my list to try. Although I found the 55-200 superior to the 18-150 on the M, it's a serious representation of workflow simplification and bulk reduction for the R, which matters more for the R than for the M. And yes, once again, it's not fair, the RF gets a prim and proper 24-something superzoom vs the EF-M got a 28-something superzoom.

Ali wrote:

Normally you pay quite a premium going from f1.8 to 1.4. It’s not cheap, but with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 you are getting a great lens for the price, a price an RF lens probably won’t match.

No, not necessarily. Any f/1.8 primes that come for the RF are likely to also be around the same range. EF versions of the 35, 50 and 85 (f/2/1.4/1.8 respectively) aren't that far off.

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is an anomoly as the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM was more, MSRP. Canon's clearly used it teh RF 35mm as "ground bait" for the R system.

Now you can't match the total cost. An M50 + 32mm is a bargin. You can't get a $500 EOS R. You can get a $1300-1600 one soon though. Dilutes the savings. You do get what you pay for though.

As expected, of course.

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)

The RF lens transmits more total light too.

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

Whatchutalkingabout, Willis? Need? Depends on the situation. Say you want to stop down to f/11 while keeping ISO low, turn on the IS.

...

Ali wrote:

Normally you pay quite a premium going from f1.8 to 1.4. It’s not cheap, but with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 you are getting a great lens for the price, a price an RF lens probably won’t match.

It already did. The RF lens transmits more total light at f/1.8 than the M lens at f/1.4, offers IS, is FF-sensor capable, and offers 1:2 Macro, yet it is essentially the same price. The RF lens has the M lens beat already.

Consider the 28mm EF-M, then. OK, it's quite slow, but it has IS, it goes to 1.2x, even has a built-in macro light and is cheap.
Back in EF world, my 35mm f1.4 doesn't have IS or focus down to half life size either, yet is considerably more expensive than any of the lenses discussed. Do I feel ripped off? No, I feel I have one of the best lenses in the world that does a great job.

Don't get me wrong, if I bought an R, I would get the 35 even if it duplicated my L II, because it's a terrific lens and a great value proposition, but Canon currently make some wonderful lenses in this focal length area, and each has its own strengths. Yeah, might be nice to combine a few bits from each, but how big and expensive would a 35mm f1.4 L IS Maco actually be?

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.

Back2M wrote:  As a former 32mm owner, and R and RF 35 owner, the RF 35 is serious bang for your buck. It's the 22mm or the R system, that is, it's one of the R system's special powers (for the moment).  Canon's luring folks to the R system with it.

You are the ONLY GUY here who gets what I"m saying.

• No, I'm not seeking an alternative lens suggestion
• No, I'm not saying F/1.4 doesn't have advantage over F/1.8 with IS + Macro

What I am saying is that for a mere $20 difference, you get

• Image Stabilization - critical for video
• 0.5x Macro - however small, is way better than 0.25x on 32/1.4
• There is no double that you far more MONEY VALUE buying RF > EF-M

Isn't the whole point of keeping EF-M is for portabile consumer and RF as premium full frame?  But when you judge a lens by its capability, RF lens is now offering more value for mony, more useful feature.

While I agree with previous suggestion that EF-M 28/3.5 Macro is a nice lens, it doesn't remove the fact that for I can buy a RF 35/1.8 IS STM (0.5x) Macro for just $499, yet a EF-M 32/1.4 (design for a cheaper consumer platform) lack these feature.

Like I say, it just an ANNOYANCE rant, nothing more.

007peter wrote:

Back2M wrote: As a former 32mm owner, and R and RF 35 owner, the RF 35 is serious bang for your buck. It's the 22mm or the R system, that is, it's one of the R system's special powers (for the moment). Canon's luring folks to the R system with it.

You are the ONLY GUY here who gets what I"m saying.

• No, I'm not seeking an alternative lens suggestion
• No, I'm not saying F/1.4 doesn't have advantage over F/1.8 with IS + Macro

What I am saying is that for a mere $20 difference, you get

• Image Stabilization - critical for video
• 0.5x Macro - however small, is way better than 0.25x on 32/1.4
• There is no double that you far more MONEY VALUE buying RF > EF-M

Isn't the whole point of keeping EF-M is for portabile consumer and RF as premium full frame? But when you judge a lens by its capability, RF lens is now offering more value for mony, more useful feature.

While I agree with previous suggestion that EF-M 28/3.5 Macro is a nice lens, it doesn't remove the fact that for I can buy a RF 35/1.8 IS STM (0.5x) Macro for just $499, yet a EF-M 32/1.4 (design for a cheaper consumer platform) lack these feature.

Like I say, it just an ANNOYANCE rant, nothing more.

.

I think you might be missing your own point here...
.
The RF 35mm lens is a cheapie. Canon needed to offer it to encourage sales from people who would otherwise balk at spending thousands on the RF L-series lenses. If this was the only lens on offer for the R system at launch that we all know they could have stuck a red ring on, added some seals and sold it for $1500+.
.
Back2M bought this lens with his EOS R and like myself noted that the similarities between the EF-M 32mm made for a compelling argument to stay with the EOS M because the image quality was there with the 32mm lens... along with creative freedom and flattering bokeh. The difference in focal lengths (one is designed for Full Frame mirrorless sensors and the other for APS-C mirrorless sensors) means they are not interchangeable nor can they be used on any other camera system. Yet they both produce very different focal lengths.
.
Image Stabilization is completely overrate (*and unnecessary) on an f/1.4 lens designed for APS-C mounts. And f/1.8 is just on the border of being too slow (hence Canon gave it an Image Stabilizer). What good is getting locked into an expensive system of high-priced lenses costing thousands of dollars unless you need Full Frame? Unless you're prepared to fork out that money for quality L-series RF glass, the only compelling lens on offer is this one.
.
RF 35mm = 35mm focal length (more distortion, false 'macro' ability)
EF-M 32mm = 51mm focal length (less distortion, great 'closeup' ability)
.
I'm a very big fan of the RF 32mm lens but the price has to be low to attract buyers. You seem disappointed that Canon is offering two lenses at almost the same price for two different mounts... and yet there were (and still are complaints) that the EF-M 32mm lens is "far too expensive" for some members to buy, even though they want it. There seems to be something wrong with the way members apply value to their lenses. I think the 32mm f/1.4 lens is a very important one for M users. They may not need it but it's extremely capable. On one hand M users feel the EF-M 32mm is too expensive and offers no I.S. - and yet the EF 35mm f/1.4 USM lens (at many times this price) has no I.S. and is considered to be the "Gold Standard" for L-series lenses. On the other hand the RF 35mm has an even wider field of view (much wider!) and is relatively slow glass compared to what could have been... hence it really needed the I.S. in order to be practical.
.
Feeling irritated that one new expensive system got a lens at the same price as our established M-system that happens to have Image Stabilization on it (because it needs it) suggests you might be looking at this all wrong.
.
The problems associated with the RF 35mm f/1.4 IS STM lens...
The RF 35mm f/1.4 STM lens has its own flaws. It performs best (sharpest) between f/2.8 and f/11... and this explains why an Image Stabilizer was essential. But it vignettes at f/1.8 to f/2.8 ... even showing up beyond f/4. One reviewer from a tech site covered this issue with detail last year and they described the vignetting as "significant". It can be controlled with in-camera correction but that means you have to shoot in JPEG. There's barrel distortion as well. Now barrel distortion is something you really don't want on a Macro lens. You can eliminate much of this with in-camera corrections but that means you have to shoot in JPEG. If you prefer to shoot RAW you'll need to deal with this problem later during processing. It's a singular lens with nothing else that compares to it. And it performs very well. I personally recommend it. But it has flaws like any lens does.
.
If you own an EOS R camera, buy the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM lens. This is something I recommended to another member responding in this thread and he likes it. But if you own an EOS M, by the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens. If you don't feel you need it, don't buy it.
.
But if I had to dump my other EF-M lenses and choose just one native lens for this mount, it would be the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens. And I think a few other owners of this lens here would probably agree to do the same. I can stand in the dark on a street corner at night and all my other EF-M lenses would fail to capture the scene - except for that one lens.

007peter wrote:

Back2M wrote: As a former 32mm owner, and R and RF 35 owner, the RF 35 is serious bang for your buck. It's the 22mm or the R system, that is, it's one of the R system's special powers (for the moment). Canon's luring folks to the R system with it.

You are the ONLY GUY here who gets what I"m saying.

• No, I'm not seeking an alternative lens suggestion
• No, I'm not saying F/1.4 doesn't have advantage over F/1.8 with IS + Macro

What I am saying is that for a mere $20 difference, you get

• Image Stabilization - critical for video
• 0.5x Macro - however small, is way better than 0.25x on 32/1.4
• There is no double that you far more MONEY VALUE buying RF > EF-M

Isn't the whole point of keeping EF-M is for portabile consumer and RF as premium full frame? But when you judge a lens by its capability, RF lens is now offering more value for mony, more useful feature.

While I agree with previous suggestion that EF-M 28/3.5 Macro is a nice lens, it doesn't remove the fact that for I can buy a RF 35/1.8 IS STM (0.5x) Macro for just $499, yet a EF-M 32/1.4 (design for a cheaper consumer platform) lack these feature.

Like I say, it just an ANNOYANCE rant, nothing more.

No, I get what you're saying, just I don't completely agree with it. Yes, on the surface, the RF lens looks more like an EF-M spec and the EF-M lens more like an RF. But I think that's actually what makes each lens particularly interesting for each system. Like I said, if you want a lens that does lots of tricks, the EF-M 28 is pretty much that lens, save for a fairly dim max aperture. The 32 isn't really directly comparable with the RF 35, because they have different angles of view; the 32 is equivalent to a 50, and there's no 50 in the R range that compares to it, and much though I loved my old 50mm f1.4 USM, the 32 is a far better lens. But the value proposition for the 32 isn't the spec, but the performance. It's a magnificent little lens that's incredibly sharp, and brighter than any other EF-M lens. For the price, it's actually really good value. You say you would give up some of that aperture for IS and macro focusing - fair enough, that's what you would have preferred. For me, though, the 28 covers macro pretty well, and I've got a couple of Viltrox extension tubes that give me closer focusing with any EF-M lens, cost very little, and are extremely lightweight. I agree, IS would be nice, but I personally wouldn't want to give up that little bit extra on the aperture, as that's the lens's whole purpose for me - to allow differential focusing, not all that easy on APS-C. And I feel that implementing IS would have pushed the lens price beyond where Canon felt comfortable. Any lens is a compromise; I understand that you don't think it's the right one for you, and that's fine. Even though I'm not over-keen on the angle of view of a 50mm equivalent (I much prefer 35mm equivalent, i.e. the 22), I personally think Canon made the right choice - I can't see any advantage of more or less duplicating the 28 as a 32/35, makes far more sense to me to offer something different.
The R lens is that something different for that system, and I believe the reason why it has STM is nothing to do with cost, but everything to do with the fact it's aimed at vloggers.

So I sympathise with you, but don't share your feelings.

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.

From what I have seen, the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is exceptionally good value. I am very tempted to buy a M50 partly in order to get it. It seems so good that it is almost surprising that Canon decided to make it in circumstances where they stand to make much more money by pushing people towards the EOS R system. As an M shooter you should be bloody glad that it is available at a very reasonable cost. I am amazed that anyone would think that Canon needs to reduce the price of it to make it more attractive.

(Full disclosure: I would also pick up the EF-M 11-22 and EF-M 22 which are both exceptional value for money)

The RF 35 is also good value, for sure, but you are comparing apples with oranges. It is not at all dissimilar to the EF 35mm f/2 IS lens, though, which has long been available for a not dissimilar price. There is no equivalent available for canon crop cameras and there almost certainly never will be. Fuji come close but they don't have a full frame system to protect / entice customers to.

The bottom line is that wide aperture, wide angle lenses that don't weight a ton (I'm looking at you, Sigma 24 Art) is one of the biggest draws of full frame cameras. Rather than be annoyed you should be glad that Canon has made that option available to you if you want it at a reasonable cost. Happy with the relatively wide aperture EF-M 22? Great! Want an exceptional 50mm--ish f/2.2-ish (equivalent) lens - you are lucky to have the EF-M 32 (ask EF shooters). Want wider aperture at that angle of view - upgrade to the RP and RF 35.

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.

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

...

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.

...

F/1.4 → F/1.8 : not 1/3 stop, but 2/3 stop faster.

For instance, the price difference between the EF 50mm F/1.4 and the EF 50mm F/1.8 might give you an idea how much people are ready to pay for 2/3 stop faster.

By the way, there are already several EF-M IS lenses.

mpressed wrote:

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...

It's a brilliant move, actually. The EOS R is another 6DII, I.e. underwhelming in every sense of the word. The RP promises to be everything that mirrorless and Canon are supposedly about: low cost, high production automation, compact cameras with great optics.

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.

Not gonna happen, unfortunately. But hey, the RP will always offer better IQ, anyway, so when you change systems there will be that upshot 😆

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

We have been telling this forum for months now: EF-M is a dead mount walking. It won't happen tomorrow, or next month, but its deprecation is coming, and if the RP is a huge success, it'll happen sooner than expected.