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

thunder storm wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

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.

Problem is the 32mm can only be tested at a max 24 Mp sensor, where the 50mm can only be tested on a 30Mp sensor. If you are viewing at the same size of pictures it is not a fair comparison if you want to compare the lenses only regardless the sensor. If you are comparing at the same pixel level the size of the objects is different, which makes it hard to compare.

Does it really matter if RF 50mm is a hair or two sharper than EF-m 32mm? They are totally different beasts in size, weight and price...

007peter wrote:by Canon's pricing structure; you definitely get more Value for Money buying RF lens.

Another way of looking at it:

The 50mm RF lens is $2299.00

The 51mm equivalent EF-M lens is $479.99

thunder storm wrote:

I think it does matter when you spend 2500 on a lens in stead of 500, and 2500 on a camera in stead of 500.

Well, so true! 😁

Kharan wrote:

Bhotoz wrote:

Kharan wrote:

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

Not always... It depends what are you shooting and what are you doing with your pics...

It will. Whether it matters to you is something else, but the superior technical quality of larger sensors is undeniable - especially with Canon, where the 35mm systems get the absolute best lenses, and those same lenses often produce lesser results on APS-C.

Yes, if shooting in low light and printing large or pixel peeping, or if you want thinner DOF, FF is the winner. But if you are doing "only" small prints or resized pics for web, you propably won't see the difference. (I have also FF.)

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.

Do you think those who are shooting now with Mxx + 11-22mm or xxxxD + 10-18mm, are happily going to RP + EF or RF 16-35mm?

No, but they will jump for a better APS-C RF body with compact lenses. Especially once all development for EF-M is cut, and people start to panic.

Many of "them" have bought the M-system because it's small, light and cheap and still produces great pics. I doubt Canon can make as small, light and cheap bodies and lenses as M100, M50 and EF-m lenses in R-line. Do you think?

Personally, I hope Canon would make great, fast and weather sealed RF-mounted aps-c body + RF 100-400mm / 200-500mm / 500mm f5.6 IS. I hope the body would be the same size as original R. I would change my 7d2 to that (if it's worth it). But I wouldn't panic or ditch my M-stuff (M50, 11-22mm, 18-150mm, 22mm, 28mm, 32mm) to "equivalent R-stuff", because I'm happy with them in my use.

I believe Dslrs + EF-s and EF-lenses will be discontinued in the future (I'm sure we won't see any new EF-s lens in the future). But M-cameras will stay as a small and affordable system for those, who don't want to buy bigger, heavier and more expensive FF/R-system.

No, they won't, because EF-M represents the worst of all worlds - a mount that is wholly incompatible with RF, that has a tiny market share penetration in comparison with EF and EF-S, that stems from the Powershot division, that has a truncated and limited system, and that has served to be a testbed for Canon to find out exactly what do customers want in an entry-level mirrorless camera. Armed with this knowledge, Canon can now replicate their same success with RF mount, and consolidate their offerings around a single mount.

I'm going to change my FF dslr to some R-body (when Canon gives me better eye AF and more fps in servo). But I'll keep shooting with that "worst of all worlds - a mount that is wholly incompatible with RF, that has a tiny market share penetration" and not worry about the mount, because it's fun system to shoot and have with you, and it produces great pics. 😊

-- hide signature --

"Chase the light around the world
I want to look at life
In the available light" - Rush, 'Available Light'

Kharan wrote:

Bhotoz wrote:

Kharan wrote:

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

Not always... It depends what are you shooting and what are you doing with your pics...

It will. Whether it matters to you is something else, but the superior technical quality of larger sensors is undeniable - especially with Canon, where the 35mm systems get the absolute best lenses, and those same lenses often produce lesser results on APS-C.

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.

Do you think those who are shooting now with Mxx + 11-22mm or xxxxD + 10-18mm, are happily going to RP + EF or RF 16-35mm?

No, but they will jump for a better APS-C RF body with compact lenses. Especially once all development for EF-M is cut, and people start to panic.

I believe Dslrs + EF-s and EF-lenses will be discontinued in the future (I'm sure we won't see any new EF-s lens in the future). But M-cameras will stay as a small and affordable system for those, who don't want to buy bigger, heavier and more expensive FF/R-system.

No, they won't, because EF-M represents the worst of all worlds - a mount that is wholly incompatible with RF, that has a tiny market share penetration in comparison with EF and EF-S, that stems from the Powershot division, that has a truncated and limited system, and that has served to be a testbed for Canon to find out exactly what do customers want in an entry-level mirrorless camera. Armed with this knowledge, Canon can now replicate their same success with RF mount, and consolidate their offerings around a single mount.

I still don't see why Canon world develop a third APS-C system based on the RF mount when they optimised the M mount for APS-C. The superior technical quality of larger sensors is undeniable - especially with Canon and to dilute the top quality image of the RF mount cameras with an APS-C range doesn't make sense to me.  Birders and sports photographers might go for a top of the range RF mount successor to the 7D series but for everyone else the M series makes more sense.  I don't mind that my EF-M lenses won't mount on my EOS R because they won't cover the format. I have EF lenses too share between my Ms and my R.  Why add lenses to the RF mount which are incompatible with most of the camera?

007peter wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

Another way of looking at it:

The 50mm RF lens is $2299.00

The 51mm equivalent EF-M lens is $479.99

I'm not quite sure how you came up with the price. But a quick check with B&H:

• $679 Canon M5
• $479 Canon EF-M 32/1.4
• = $1158

the new Canon RP is rumor is be $1300 body only with a FF sensor to justify its premium over APS-C M5 as well. As Canon release more & more RF lens, and increasingly ignoring EF-M lens, R platform is looking far more attractive. While EF-32/1.4 and RF 35/1.8 IS STM are price similarly; one has a future, and one is facing possible extinction. That makes buying EF-M 32/1.4 risky @best.

Anyhow, no need to response till we see how a cheaper Canon RP applies its pricing pressure across all APS-C & M43 camera. I suspect RP will prompt Nikon & Sony to response with cheaper FF camera as well.

I can't see Canon closing down their optimised for APS-C range and then launching a third range of APS-C lenses in RF mount which would be incompatible with every RF mount camera released or semi-announced so far. That would really upset their market and not in a good way.

thunder storm wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

007peter wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

Another way of looking at it:

The 50mm RF lens is $2299.00

The 51mm equivalent EF-M lens is $479.99

I'm not quite sure how you came up with the price.