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

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

Started Jun 19, 2019 | User reviews
Ferazzzz_2011 Regular Member • Posts: 250
Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system
16

This is a lens that every M camera owner should have. It fully revitalized the M system... and it is exactly what Canon needed to do. If they make an 85mm prime with this kind of rendering I will honestly be bringing my M5 as my second body for shooting weddings. That's how good this lens actually is.

It has superb micro contrast and sharpness and almost has L quality rendering. I would go as far as saying that this is the sharpest 50mm equivalent lens for any APS-C camera maker.

No joke I now leave my Full Frame bodies at home because it is that good, and I have zero reason to lug around extra weight for a non noticeable difference in image quality...

 Ferazzzz_2011's gear list:Ferazzzz_2011's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +12 more
Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 STM
Prime lens • Canon EF-M
Announced: Sep 5, 2018
Ferazzzz_2011's score
5.0
Average community score
5.0
georgios_fakinos
georgios_fakinos Regular Member • Posts: 132
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system

I totally agree with you although I do not own any full frame camera 

 georgios_fakinos's gear list:georgios_fakinos's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Canon EOS M5 Fujifilm X-T4 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM +3 more
casey1823
casey1823 Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system

It's a great sharp little lens. I love using it a family event, it's on my M5 most of the time.

I would love an 85M, just not sure what Canon has in store for the lineup. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Casey

 casey1823's gear list:casey1823's gear list
Fujifilm XF 200mm F2 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm X-H2S Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +6 more
Marco Nero
Marco Nero Veteran Member • Posts: 7,582
I agree... the size difference and IQ is impressive...
9

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

This is a lens that every M camera owner should have. It fully revitalized the M system... and it is exactly what Canon needed to do. If they make an 85mm prime with this kind of rendering I will honestly be bringing my M5 as my second body for shooting weddings. That's how good this lens actually is.

It has superb micro contrast and sharpness and almost has L quality rendering. I would go as far as saying that this is the sharpest 50mm equivalent lens for any APS-C camera maker.

No joke I now leave my Full Frame bodies at home because it is that good, and I have zero reason to lug around extra weight for a non noticeable difference in image quality...

I'm finding myself leaving my own Full Frame DSLRs at home now as well.  There are occasional times when in need to shoot with both systems - but 98% of the time I end up carrying the EOS M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens with me as my primary choice.  The difference in weight and size is both influential and considerable.  With such superb image quality and an abilty to outperform all modern Smartphones in super-lowlight conditions, it's earned my favor as being an ideal balance in all things.  I've often thought to myself that the rendering is very reminiscent of L-series lens quality.  I'm now hearing of Sony users migrating to the EOS M platform just to use this lens.
.
This is your review so there's no need for me to post samples from my own galleries from this lens... but take a look at the picture below (taken with an iPhone) showing the difference is size between the M6 and 6D cameras that I was using side-by-side at a night shoot.  At the end of the evening, with over two dozen professional photographers alongside me, not one of them noticed my EOS M camera because it was so small.  Yet the image quality was much the same from both cameras at the time.
.

My M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 last week alongside my 6D DSLR + EF 24mm f/1.4L lens.
It's worth noting that the 6D was considered the smallest Full Frame DSLR when it was released.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Marco Nero.

 Marco Nero's gear list:Marco Nero's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS Ra Canon EOS R6 Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM +20 more
KEG
KEG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,909
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system
3

This lens is the reason I decided to stick with the M system... The best part being I haven't bought it yet.

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

This is a lens that every M camera owner should have. It fully revitalized the M system... and it is exactly what Canon needed to do. If they make an 85mm prime with this kind of rendering I will honestly be bringing my M5 as my second body for shooting weddings. That's how good this lens actually is.

It has superb micro contrast and sharpness and almost has L quality rendering. I would go as far as saying that this is the sharpest 50mm equivalent lens for any APS-C camera maker.

No joke I now leave my Full Frame bodies at home because it is that good, and I have zero reason to lug around extra weight for a non noticeable difference in image quality...

-- hide signature --

KEG

 KEG's gear list:KEG's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM +21 more
Miguel-C
Miguel-C Senior Member • Posts: 2,321
Re: I agree... the size difference and IQ is impressive...

Marco Nero wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

This is a lens that every M camera owner should have. It fully revitalized the M system... and it is exactly what Canon needed to do. If they make an 85mm prime with this kind of rendering I will honestly be bringing my M5 as my second body for shooting weddings. That's how good this lens actually is.

It has superb micro contrast and sharpness and almost has L quality rendering. I would go as far as saying that this is the sharpest 50mm equivalent lens for any APS-C camera maker.

No joke I now leave my Full Frame bodies at home because it is that good, and I have zero reason to lug around extra weight for a non noticeable difference in image quality...

I'm finding myself leaving my own Full Frame DSLRs at home now as well. There are occasional times when in need to shoot with both systems - but 98% of the time I end up carrying the EOS M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens with me as my primary choice. The difference in weight and size is both influential and considerable. With such superb image quality and an abilty to outperform all modern Smartphones in super-lowlight conditions, it's earned my favor as being an ideal balance in all things. I've often thought to myself that the rendering is very reminiscent of L-series lens quality. I'm now hearing of Sony users migrating to the EOS M platform just to use this lens.
.
This is your review so there's no need for me to post samples from my own galleries from this lens... but take a look at the picture below (taken with an iPhone) showing the difference is size between the M6 and 6D cameras that I was using side-by-side at a night shoot. At the end of the evening, with over two dozen professional photographers alongside me, not one of them noticed my EOS M camera because it was so small. Yet the image quality was much the same from both cameras at the time.
.

My M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 last week alongside my 6D DSLR + EF 24mm f/1.4L lens. It's worth noting that the 6D was considered the smallest Full Frame DSLR when it was released.

The M6 has such a sleek design, i wish canon would make a rangefinder out of it.

 Miguel-C's gear list:Miguel-C's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Canon EOS M5 Panasonic Lumix DC-S5 Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +3 more
Indieke1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,026
Re: I agree... the size difference and IQ is impressive...

Yes, it made me make the decision to not go for the  Sony a 6400.

But canon should extend their range in M mount lenses. There is a huge potential market for it. More and more people love the M series, but thought the Sony was the thing to have.  Now this lens proves the Canon M is a much better deal for the price spend......

 Indieke1's gear list:Indieke1's gear list
Canon EOS M50
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 975
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system
1

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) 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.

thunder storm Forum Pro • Posts: 10,139
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system

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.

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
plantdoc Veteran Member • Posts: 4,339
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system
2

An excellent lens by all reports, but I largely have quit using Prime lens for 90% of my pics. A single Fl is too limiting and frequent lens changes are not practical for my wide range of subjects. I would like see to a better general use zoom lens covering 24-120 and f4 although variable aperture and a bit less telephoto is ok. Needs consistent very good IQ and much less sample variation.à

Greg

istscott
istscott Regular Member • Posts: 467
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system
2

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

This is a lens that every M camera owner should have. It fully revitalized the M system... and it is exactly what Canon needed to do. If they make an 85mm prime with this kind of rendering I will honestly be bringing my M5 as my second body for shooting weddings. That's how good this lens actually is.

Fun fact, someone asked me to be a second photographer at a wedding. I used two M50 bodies and mostly the 32mm plus the 22mm. The main photographer used around 400 of 1200 images I shot, so I'd say it worked out well. He told me earlier in the photo taking day he usually only uses around 100-200 from the second person. I wouldn't say the M50 is great for weddings for a few reasons, but I made it work well enough. I do think the images from the 32mm were the best from an image quality and focus-where-I-needed-it-to perspective.

endofwed Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

This is a lens that every M camera owner should have. It fully revitalized the M system... and it is exactly what Canon needed to do. If they make an 85mm prime with this kind of rendering I will honestly be bringing my M5 as my second body for shooting weddings. That's how good this lens actually is.

It has superb micro contrast and sharpness and almost has L quality rendering. I would go as far as saying that this is the sharpest 50mm equivalent lens for any APS-C camera maker.

No joke I now leave my Full Frame bodies at home because it is that good, and I have zero reason to lug around extra weight for a non noticeable difference in image quality...

I was wondering if you could help me out. I am trying to attempt a similar setup but on an extreme budget.

I plan on getting the original eos-m paired with the viltrox lens adapter/ 50mm ef lens allowing me to shoot in full frame.

Would this give me a similar results? I wish I could buy the ef-m 32mm but its ~400 usd, way out of my budget.

thunder storm Forum Pro • Posts: 10,139
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system
1

endofwed wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

This is a lens that every M camera owner should have. It fully revitalized the M system... and it is exactly what Canon needed to do. If they make an 85mm prime with this kind of rendering I will honestly be bringing my M5 as my second body for shooting weddings. That's how good this lens actually is.

It has superb micro contrast and sharpness and almost has L quality rendering. I would go as far as saying that this is the sharpest 50mm equivalent lens for any APS-C camera maker.

No joke I now leave my Full Frame bodies at home because it is that good, and I have zero reason to lug around extra weight for a non noticeable difference in image quality...

I was wondering if you could help me out. I am trying to attempt a similar setup but on an extreme budget.

I plan on getting the original eos-m paired with the viltrox lens adapter/ 50mm ef lens allowing me to shoot in full frame.

Would this give me a similar results? I wish I could buy the ef-m 32mm but its ~400 usd, way out of my budget.

You can create the same out the of focus backgrounds for less, but not with the same contrast and sharpness.

The 50mm stm isn't sharp wide open. You need to stop it down to f/2.8 for good sharpness. On full frame the sharp area never covers the whole frame.

There are several ways to make out of focus backgrounds in a budget friendly way.

- have your subject closer to the camera

- have your background further away

- use longer focal lengths rather than larger apertures

- use manual focus lenses (Samyang/Rokinon, Meike, 7artisians, Kamlan, etc)

- buy stuff second hand

If you need autofocus have a look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM second hand. This lens also needs a little stopping down for good sharpness, but the longer focal length still gives you good back ground blur even stopped down. Pair it with an affordable Viltrox adapter, and you might have a more satisfying combination.

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
glokenpop
glokenpop Regular Member • Posts: 435
22mm and 15mm

I agree that lens makes me interested in the system. I wish they'd add a 15mm 1.4. A 22 and 53 1.4 and you have a serious system.

 glokenpop's gear list:glokenpop's gear list
Canon PowerShot A710 IS Canon PowerShot G2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Olympus PEN E-PM2 +5 more
thunder storm Forum Pro • Posts: 10,139
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system

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.

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
DanMcG Regular Member • Posts: 311
Re: Canon EF-F 32f/1.4 - The lens that revitalized the M system

Just wanted to add that the 32 is actually a tough little lens too. I managed to drop mine while the front and rear caps were off, was swapping it for the 22. It landed on the edge of the manual focus ring and bounced a couple times on asphalt. I freaked out because that lens cost more than my refurbished M6 body, but turns out it's still perfectly functional and suffered no ill effects other than a bit of scuffing.

For the other 32mm owners... what ND filter do you use? I got a cheap one on Amazon to allow me to shoot at 1.4 while out in bright daylight, but the color cast that it gives my photos is unpleasant and I can't seem to edit away the issue with WB tweaks.

Random example-

 DanMcG's gear list:DanMcG's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4
Marco Nero
Marco Nero Veteran Member • Posts: 7,582
To DanMcG - Re CPL filters
2

DanMcG wrote:

Just wanted to add that the 32 is actually a tough little lens too. I managed to drop mine while the front and rear caps were off, was swapping it for the 22. It landed on the edge of the manual focus ring and bounced a couple times on asphalt. I freaked out because that lens cost more than my refurbished M6 body, but turns out it's still perfectly functional and suffered no ill effects other than a bit of scuffing.

I smacked mine against a couple of cement walls recently but the lens hood I was using caught and deflected any damage. One of those impacts was quite hard.  I've also had people smack up against the camera lens several times in just the last two weeks while walking through crowds with the camera in my hand.  Again, the lens hood I'm using (which isn't the OEM hood) did a marvelous job of protecting the lens from impact damage with the rings on the hand of the offending party.

For the other 32mm owners... what ND filter do you use? I got a cheap one on Amazon to allow me to shoot at 1.4 while out in bright daylight, but the color cast that it gives my photos is unpleasant and I can't seem to edit away the issue with WB tweaks.

I've elected to use a Circular Polarizer instead of an ND filter. It should be noted that most ND filters of any quality ought to be color neutral. Less expensive ND filters are often prone to strange color castes... with excessive magenta bias being common. Circular Polarizers can cut down on light much the same way as an ND 2-Stop filter (possibly 4-stop) can. But they too can affect color... usually by increasing saturation and by warming colors up (again, with a stronger magenta/yellow saturation). The better quality the filter, the more likely you are to be pleased with the results.
.

There's a lot of alternatives out there. I tend to shoot near beaches on occasion so I thought I'd try my luck with the HOYA 'Fusion' anti-static CPL filters.  So far they're performing well.

.
Most of what I've written here is for the benefit of others who might encounter this post.  You seem to have experience with filters to much of what I'm saying may already be known to you.
.
I've started using the new HOYA "Fusion" CPL filters on the 32mm lens. These are also known as the "EVO" series in parts of North America. This new series of filters also includes a UV filter with exceptionally high light transmission. All have a new anti-static coating which repels dirt, dust and other particulates, making them much easier to clean in the field. I've always been fond of cutting down the glare with wide open apertures on fast lenses in sunlight and use CPL filters on my f/2 and f/1.4 and even my f/1.2 lenses in bright sunlight. One obvious benefit of the 43mm filter size of the 32mm lens is that the same filters can be swapped over to the 22mm or the 28mm Macro lenses.
.
I also used a VERY cheap CPL filter with the brand name of 'INCA' for the first day that I used the 32mm lens.  The results were just fine.  Even though INCA is cheaper brand filter (sold in Australasia), it usually produces a very similar result to a standard HOYA CPL filter.
.

32mm + HOYA 'Fusion' CPL - this beach actually has warm colored sand from iron deposits.

32mm + HOYA 'Fusion' CPL - softer (diffused) background, still visible at 30+ feet.

32mm + HOYA 'Fusion' CPL

32mm + HOYA 'Fusion' CPL

32mm + HOYA 'Fusion' CPL

32mm + HOYA 'Fusion' CPL

.

Like yourself, I find it hard to edit poor color in an image if it's wrong straight out of the camera.  It's not impossible but the results are not always exactly what I'd like to see... so I try to get the colors right with the correct White Balance and personal User Defined Settings on the camera.  One thing I've found is important with CPL filters (and may or may not apply to ND filters) is that the White Balance should sometimes be shifted to "Daylight" when shooting in bright sunlight.  Failure to do so appears to add a little more magenta to my shots.  I usually forget to do this although the samples above from my own camera were mostly taken with Auto WB.
.
There are photographers who use CPL filter just to embolden skies and make the clouds appear crisper and more defined.  I've noticed that shooting flowers with a CPL filter can cut down on glare but that colors may become much warmer.
.

CPL filter (with PP color-correction) used below.

CPL filter - turning the filter whilst shooting at the ground while walking resulted in a variety of tones and a reduction of specular reflections.  The same applies to buildings and also to laminated surfaces indoors and especially window reflections.

Probably the most profound result from using a CPL filter is the ability to remove reflections in daylight from windows on vehicles and buildings.

Taken with an older camera.

32mm + HOYA 'Fusion' CPL - I saw this bright little mini parked in a car park (my car is the deep-red one in the distance behind it) and used the CPL filter to cut down on glare, increase warmth and saturation and then to eliminate reflections from the window as best as I could with a single exposure.  Multiple shots would gave allowed more selective results on the chrome and paintwork.

.
Of course, you may prefer to use the much more neutral ND filters since they are NOT supposed to affect color at all, just the transmission of light.  They can actually age and cause discoloration if old and that's something a lot of experienced photographers either forget or don't take into consideration.  I've purchased a Variable-Density ND filter for use on the 11-22mm lens but on a wide lens like that it produces truly HIDEOUS banding of the worst possible kind.  However, since the 32mm lens has a much narrower FOV, I'm thinking I might try digging that filter out and using a step ring to mount it to the 32mm lens.
.
Something worth mentioning before I go is that the 32mm lens has had issues with some filters not locking down on the lens.  I believe B&W and several types of step-rings were unable to lock down and would continue to turn due to their own thread thickness being slightly different in protrusion (even though they are 43mm).  Since my own step-rings (sourced online on Ebay) also don't lock down, I've taken to mounting them directly to the UV filter's outward threads (the UV filters from HOYA are threaded on both sides).
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

 Marco Nero's gear list:Marco Nero's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS Ra Canon EOS R6 Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM +20 more
thunder storm Forum Pro • Posts: 10,139
Re: 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.

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
Waldemar Senior Member • Posts: 1,994
22mm 1.4...
1

That would be it, for a little less DOF.

50mm equiv. is too long for environmental type of shooting and too short for portraiture. Everybody traditionally owns one and usually it´s just collecting dust.

-- hide signature --

Waldemar
www.pbase.com/haak

thunder storm Forum Pro • Posts: 10,139
Re: 22mm 1.4...
1

Waldemar wrote:

That would be it, for a little less DOF.

50mm equiv. is too long for environmental type of shooting and too short for portraiture. Everybody traditionally owns one and usually it´s just collecting dust.

I like 32mm or 35mm for portraits of 2 persons, sometimes 3. It is the ideal focal length of catching little funny interactions. Using f/1.4 is tricky as 2 faces are seldom both within such a thin DOF.

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads