Canon 32mm F1.4 vs Sigma 30mm F1.4?

Any thoughts on these two?

Assuming the price for the Sigma would be about the same as the Sony E and m43 counterparts, the Sigma will be about $190 cheaper.

Is the Canon worth $190 more?

Anyone have experience with the Sigma on a Sony or m43 system?

tobicy68 wrote:

Any thoughts on these two?

Assuming the price for the Sigma would be about the same as the Sony E and m43 counterparts, the Sigma will be about $190 cheaper.

Is the Canon worth $190 more?

Anyone have experience with the Sigma on a Sony or m43 system?

Unfortunately i didn't find reviewers who have reviewed both. Christopher Frost has reviewed the 32mm from Canon and the 16&56mm from sigma, but not the 30mm from sigma. Dustin Abbot didn't do both.

The Sigma is not a bad lens.  This is the sigma at 24Mp:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-30mm-F14-DC-DN-C-Sony-E-mounted-on-Sony-A6000---Measurements__942

Unfortunately the ef-m 32mm isn't tested by dxomark.

I tested the 32mm myself. At f/2.0  it is at least as sharp as my sigma 18-35mm at f/2.8.  Wide open it is still good, but not thát good.

tobicy68 wrote:

Any thoughts on these two?

I took a look at the Sigma 30 a while back when it was popular. It doesn't really have a "following" like the EF-M 32mm does. But it's popular with Sony users because of the aperture. So there's a few people out there using it enthusiastically. The Sigma has issues with Chromatic Aberration (CA), especially when shooting wide. Something that the Canon EF-M 32mm handles very well, presumably due to optical coatings. Another point that people often raise with the Sigma 30mm is that it has some barrel distortion which is often easily controlled with software but it's stronger than a lot of users would like.  I would suggest that few photographers would own both.  But some might have used both and still own one.  One thing I will note about the Sigma is that there's been more than a few complaints about focus issues where the lens did not accurately lock onto the subject.  Several refer to this as an "AF Consistency Issue" with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens.  One user that I referred to in a prior post here complained that the lens worked fine for a few weeks and then the aperture jammed.  I can't say I've heard the same from any of the Canon users with the EF-M lens.  There's also a few different Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens variants to consider.

Assuming the price for the Sigma would be about the same as the Sony E and m43 counterparts, the Sigma will be about $190 cheaper.

Is the Canon worth $190 more?

Yes. This is a lens that was designed to work exclusively on the EF-M mount.

Anyone have experience with the Sigma on a Sony or m43 system?

Take a look at all the folks jumping ship from Sony just to use the EOS M cameras with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens. They're not too interested in other lenses, just the 32mm. I've previously read two comments from reviewers who rated the EF-M 32mm lens as being 'as sharp as Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens' with one reviewer stating that he considered the EF lens to be the "benchmark" for lens sharpness with wide aperture lenses but previously thought that was Canon's sharpest overall lens. In my own observations the EF-M 32mm is sharper. And to make it more interesting, it's darned sharp at even f/1.4 - more so than the EF 35mmL lens.
.
The samples below are JPEGS that are straight out of the camera (EOS M6). There's been no editing and even no resizing. No anti-vignetting and no corrections of any kind have been applied.  These were taken when I was testing the EF-M 32mm lens over a weekend prior to the local release of the lens.
.

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

EF-M 32mm lens - unedited JPEG from camera

.
I've used my friends old Sigma 30mm lens and it was pleasant. I was enamored with my EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens at the time so the sigma wasn't in my line of sight at the time. My friend bought that lens for the purpose of shooting in clubs and in low light but he later moved to Medium Frame and lost all interest in that lens. Most of the people giving it high ratings when it was released hadn't used a lens with a shallow DOF before so they were both overwhelmed and overenthusiastic about it when they bought one.
.
I use the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens for anything that you'd shoot with a 50mm lens (the FOV is the same when using this lens on an APS-C camera due to the crop factor). Since the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens was designed especially for the EOS M camera mount, it makes sense that it might perform better as a result of it's design heritage.
.
There's nothing to stop you from using the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens on the EOS M mount if you have other applications for it.  I tend to use the Canon EF-M 32mm lens as an all-purpose lens.  But it has a superb ability for Closeup Photography.  Canon claims you can fill up the entire frame of the sensor with a business card - and this has been my experience as well.  That enables quite a bit of versatility with this lens as you are not just stuck using it for pets and portraits like you might with other "50mm" lenses.
.
The Shallow Depth Of Field is a good reason to want to own either lens and the Bokeh from the Canon 32mm lens is nice.  But bokeh aside, I'm fond of being able to take handheld shots in extremely low light, something I can do with this lens at any time.  Each lens has it own "lens character".  But it's hard to be able to spot which lens was used when comparing the 32mm lens pictures with an ocean of others.  That's probably a good thing because it suggests that it doesn't display any qualities that might catch or distract the eye of a photographer.
.

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM bokeh characteristics

Marco Nero wrote:

tobicy68 wrote:

Any thoughts on these two?

I took a look at the Sigma 30 a while back when it was popular. It doesn't really have a "following" like the EF-M 32mm does. But it's popular with Sony users because of the aperture. So there's a few people out there using it enthusiastically. The Sigma has issues with Chromatic Aberration (CA), especially when shooting wide. Something that the Canon EF-M 32mm handles very well, presumably due to optical coatings. Another point that people often raise with the Sigma 30mm is that it has some barrel distortion which is often easily controlled with software but it's stronger than a lot of users would like. I would suggest that few photographers would own both. But some might have used both and still own one. One thing I will note about the Sigma is that there's been more than a few complaints about focus issues where the lens did not accurately lock onto the subject. Several refer to this as an "AF Consistency Issue" with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens.

I guess that's the 30mm for dslr's (being the art or the pre-art)? Never read something about consistency issues for the mirrorless 30mm f/1.4 (Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary).

One user that I referred to in a prior post here complained that the lens worked fine for a few weeks and then the aperture jammed. I can't say I've heard the same from any of the Canon users with the EF-M lens. There's also a few different Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens variants to consider.

That is new for me.  As i have understood it there will become only one version of a 30mm f/1.4 from sigma available with a ef-m mount.

Assuming the price for the Sigma would be about the same as the Sony E and m43 counterparts, the Sigma will be about $190 cheaper.

Is the Canon worth $190 more?

Yes. This is a lens that was designed to work exclusively on the EF-M mount.

I agree with you.  Of course you can actually test your self if a lens works just as good as the native one on your current camera body, however, the problem with third party lenses with a Canon mount is the compatibility can get broke with a newer Canon camera.

Fortunately for the sigma 30mm is a better (although more expensive) native alternative, however, there aren't native alternatives for the 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.4 from sigma.

The EF-M 32mm delivers. It's the M systems version of an "L" lens.

Marco,

It is good to hear the 32 is this powerful - and you've used the powerful stuff!

Craig Smith wrote:

The EF-M 32mm delivers. It's the M systems version of an "L" lens.

I’ve read this before. What is it that people call the Canon ef-m 32mm an L type lens? Is this based on lens design, coatings used, construction quality or simply the end result that the Lens delivers?

One is a Canon, the other is a sigma. The Canon is very very good. What else do you need to know?

Jack Jian wrote:

Kinger wrote:

Craig Smith wrote:

The EF-M 32mm delivers. It's the M systems version of an "L" lens.

I’ve read this before. What is it that people call the Canon ef-m 32mm an L type lens? Is this based on lens design, coatings used, construction quality or simply the end result that the Lens delivers?

The rendering character - Contrast/Color/Micro contrast (3D pop)/sharpness & bokeh characteristic. It's not an L because it's plastic built with no sealing.

Thanks for the reply

thunder storm wrote:

Unfortunately i didn't find reviewers who have reviewed both.

not a review of both, but close as it gets I guess

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-ef-m-32mm-f1-4-review/2

i was surprised by the result, makes me wonder about the 16&56mm vs the 32mm

kalisti wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Unfortunately i didn't find reviewers who have reviewed both.

not a review of both, but close as it gets I guess

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-ef-m-32mm-f1-4-review/2

i was surprised by the result, makes me wonder about the 16&56mm vs the 32mm

The opinion of the DPreview staff was flawed (not just in my own opinion, if you read some of the other comments below the comparisons). Despite the Silver Award with an 85% rating, the standards of comparison were skewed against the Canon lens. My reply over 6 months ago is in the comments section as I disagreed with the rating (despite it being a good one). By DPreview's comparisons of other lenses, this one ought to have rated 90-95%. Longitudal Chromatic Aberration is an expected aspect of a fast lens with a wide aperture. Especially f/1.4. And the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens controls this very well with optical design and optical coatings. That the reviewer would claim that this is a noteworthy negative listed under "what we didn't like" is ridiculous. As was their lack of comparison with the Sigma 30mm which displays it more prominently and with less control.
.
The only thing I agree with by the reviewer on the negative listing is that the lack of an included Lens Hood is almost a crime these days. Canon ought to be ashamed for making an entirely new, vastly unattractive and mostly ineffectual lens hood exclusively for this lens. It's a waste of plastic, shipping and money when there's several existing alternatives (see the EF-60F lens hood as a viable alternative).
.

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens - Round bokeh balls at f/1.4

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens - Cat-eye bokeh balls at f/1.4

.
Cat-Eye bokeh
His defining of "cat's eye" bokeh as a "negative" aspect of the lens ought to be noted when Canon's finest lenses are just as capable and willing to produce the same. Cat Eye bokeh shouldn't be considered a negative trait of any lens and is related to lens character, which in turn is the result of the parameters of the lens design and focal lenth etc. A Cat-Eye effect is usually generated when light enters the lens and aperture mechanism from an oblique angle. Canon's much lauded EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens will produce Cat Eye bokeh and nobody bats an eyelid. When was the last time you heard of someone complaining about Cat Eye bokeh from that lens? Or the Sigma 30mm for that matter - which produces the very same. Lenses with moderate to wide angle FOV are the ones that tend to produce Cat Eye bokeh and it's in their nature to do so. Especially when their iris aperture (inside the lens) is obscured by the lens barrel if viewed from the front at a slight angle. The more recessed the aperture is, the more likely you will see an ellipsing of the bokeh highlights.
.

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens - Cat Eye Bokeh

EF 85mm f/1.3L II USM lens - Cat Eye Bokeh

.
It should be noted that the reviewer uses quite a few cameras but that his preferences lean towards Nikon and other non-Canon brands via product endorsements. Regardless, there was no need to vote the 32mm f/1.4 lens down for "cat eye bokeh" or even for a lack of Image Stabilization with a lens that is so bright and fast to begin with.
.

My own thoughts back when this comparison was made

Abu Mahendra wrote:

One is a Canon, the other is a sigma. The Canon is very very good. What else do you need to know?

The sigma one was the highest scoring lens on DxO when it was released, a lot of content creators use it and love it. So i assume its also very very good.

And this the thing, i see the canon 32mm being used for family photos and animals, i see the sigma 30mm being used in professional environments. To me the latter inspires more confidence.

Marco Nero wrote:

good analysis Marco

I remember I had the old 35 f2 and the old 50 f1.8 once upon a time that had penta blades - yuk - Christmas tree lights showed penta balls

...distracting...

I have the tamron 45 f1.8 -  it has onion bokeh... but to see it you have to be huge

when I look at your f2.2 shot of the 32 -- I really like this

rather than get a 50 f1.2 L for FF that doesn't sharpen until f2, the value of the 32 f1.4 on m6ii is great!

thanks for posting

kalisti wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Unfortunately i didn't find reviewers who have reviewed both.

not a review of both, but close as it gets I guess

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-ef-m-32mm-f1-4-review/2

i was surprised by the result, makes me wonder about the 16&56mm vs the 32mm

The opinion of the DPreview staff was flawed (not just in my own opinion, if you read some of the other comments below the comparisons). Despite the Silver Award with an 85% rating, the standards of comparison were skewed against the Canon lens. My reply over 6 months ago is in the comments section as I disagreed with the rating (despite it being a good one). By DPreview's comparisons of other lenses, this one ought to have rated 90-95%. Longitudal Chromatic Aberration is an expected aspect of a fast lens with a wide aperture. Especially f/1.4. And the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens controls this very well with optical design and optical coatings. That the reviewer would claim that this is a noteworthy negative listed under "what we didn't like" is ridiculous. As was their lack of comparison with the Sigma 30mm which displays it more prominently and with less control.
.
The only thing I agree with by the reviewer on the negative listing is that the lack of an included Lens Hood is almost a crime these days. Canon ought to be ashamed for making an entirely new, vastly unattractive and mostly ineffectual lens hood exclusively for this lens. It's a waste of plastic, shipping and money when there's several existing alternatives (see the EF-60F lens hood as a viable alternative).
.

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens - Round bokeh balls at f/1.4

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens - Cat-eye bokeh balls at f/1.4

.
Cat-Eye bokeh
His defining of "cat's eye" bokeh as a "negative" aspect of the lens ought to be noted when Canon's finest lenses are just as capable and willing to produce the same. Cat Eye bokeh shouldn't be considered a negative trait of any lens and is related to lens character, which in turn is the result of the parameters of the lens design and focal lenth etc. A Cat-Eye effect is usually generated when light enters the lens and aperture mechanism from an oblique angle. Canon's much lauded EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens will produce Cat Eye bokeh and nobody bats an eyelid. When was the last time you heard of someone complaining about Cat Eye bokeh from that lens? Or the Sigma 30mm for that matter - which produces the very same. Lenses with moderate to wide angle FOV are the ones that tend to produce Cat Eye bokeh and it's in their nature to do so. Especially when their iris aperture (inside the lens) is obscured by the lens barrel if viewed from the front at a slight angle. The more recessed the aperture is, the more likely you will see an ellipsing of the bokeh highlights.
.

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens - Cat Eye Bokeh

EF 85mm f/1.3L II USM lens - Cat Eye Bokeh

.
It should be noted that the reviewer uses quite a few cameras but that his preferences lean towards Nikon and other non-Canon brands via product endorsements. Regardless, there was no need to vote the 32mm f/1.4 lens down for "cat eye bokeh" or even for a lack of Image Stabilization with a lens that is so bright and fast to begin with.
.

My own thoughts back when this comparison was made

Miguel-C wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

One is a Canon, the other is a sigma. The Canon is very very good. What else do you need to know?

The sigma one was the highest scoring lens on DxO when it was released, a lot of content creators use it and love it. So i assume its also very very good.

And this the thing, i see the canon 32mm being used for family photos and animals, i see the sigma 30mm being used in professional environments. To me the latter inspires more confidence.

Yeah... What year was that? Join us in 2019...

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

One is a Canon, the other is a sigma. The Canon is very very good. What else do you need to know?

The sigma one was the highest scoring lens on DxO when it was released, a lot of content creators use it and love it. So i assume its also very very good.

And this the thing, i see the canon 32mm being used for family photos and animals, i see the sigma 30mm being used in professional environments. To me the latter inspires more confidence.

Yeah... What year was that? Join us in 2019...

The score is still very very high and pros still use it. Im sure the canon may be still a bit sharper, but i dont think the difference is that big.

I'm very confused by your comment though, release dates rarely affect quality of lenses. The sigma 18-35 f1.8 is still the sharpest zoom available for APSC, many years after its release.

nnowak wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

kalisti wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Unfortunately i didn't find reviewers who have reviewed both.

not a review of both, but close as it gets I guess

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-ef-m-32mm-f1-4-review/2

i was surprised by the result, makes me wonder about the 16&56mm vs the 32mm

The opinion of the DPreview staff was flawed (not just in my own opinion, if you read some of the other comments below the comparisons). Despite the Silver Award with an 85% rating, the standards of comparison were skewed against the Canon lens.

The biggest factor that people miss with these percentage ratings and awards is time. The Sigma lens was launched 2 years and 7 months before the Canon 32mm f/1.4. When the Sigma lens was launched it was a very good lens with virtually no competition.

Whay do you mean? The sigma 30mm was compared to every major 35mm lens on the market at the time, including FF lenses on FF cameras.

Where do you guys come up with this rationale? Look, the canon 32mm is great, we dont have to come up with absurd coments to justify it.