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

thunder storm wrote:

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.

I agree. Two or more faces is incredibly tricky when shooting with some of the wider aperture (faster) lenses.  Some lenses are certainly more sensitive to this than others.  The worst lenses have the thinnest DOF - and of course the thin DOF is often why people buy these lenses in the first place.  I took this picture (below) with a DSLR and an f/1.2 aperture.   The girl's face on the right is absolutely and completely out of focus (doesn't show on the thumbnail here).  Enlarge the image to see what I'm referring to.  Normally I'd line up their eyeballs to get them on the same plane but in this case I failed completely when the girl with the pink hair leaned back slightly as I was taking the shot. 
.
I had a similar result in another set with different people in the shot and I was able to copy a face from one shot to the other to get them both in focus in the final edit.  F/1.4 is fairly wide and fast yet its a lot easier to work with than f/1.2 - although I also note that it's a much easier aperture for the manufacturers to produce combined with Auto Focus (which is probably why there's so many 'clone' lenses out there with f/1.4.  All the f/1.2 lenses tend to be Manual Focus Only with just a few exceptions.  As you can see from this shot, I couldn't tell at a glance that this shot was out of focus on the LCD on the camera and only noticed when I got home.
.

The problems I sometimes have with f/1.2 lenses - regardless of camera body (click to enlarge) - the girl on the right is completely out of focus. 
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

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)

I use the M50 / EF-M 32 combo with very good results @f 1.4 but only AFTER I found the menu item to make the AF point smaller. This is especially important for small objects which are not plane and perpendicular to the camera - object line.

and it doesn't have image stabilization, so maybe the 35mm f/2 IS would have been

I thought about that but I am shure ...

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.

... that Canon will release an M camera with stabilizer, maybe as test run before they put it into the full frame bodies: A smaller sensor needs "weaker" actors because it will at least have a third of the mass compared to a full frame sensor.

I think they will introduce IBIS with a 47 MPix APS-C sensor. Why? it will have a 7680 pixel wide sensor making full sensor 4k easier by binning just 2x2 pixels. And the EF-M 32 will easily satisfy the sensors resolution!

Michael B 66 wrote:

I think they will introduce IBIS with a 47 MPix APS-C sensor. Why? it will have a 7680 pixel wide sensor making full sensor 4k easier by binning just 2x2 pixels. And the EF-M 32 will easily satisfy the sensors resolution!

Thats why the 32mm has f/1.4.  The large aperture enables it to avoid diffraction on this fantastic future M body. 

Wonderful photos!!