Canon EFM 32mm F1.4 vs EF 50mm F1.8 + Viltrox EF-EOS M2 Speedbooster

A drive by review comparing the EF-M 32mm F1.4 to the EF 50mm F1.8 boosted with the Viltrox EF-EOS M2 Speed booster. A prime lens battle royal!

M Y G E A R
Cameras:

Lenses:

Accessories -

Music Credit: Brainmelt - Underbelly

Special thanks to @lovekrisss on IG for the model work in this video.

#CanonM50 #EFM32mm #Viltrox

[DriveByReviews]

How much IQ loss is too much?
B-Roll 1:56
Photo Comparison Begins 2:51

[thepixelcatcher]

So what you are saying is that a $549CAD lens can capture sharper images than a $159CAD speed boosted lens.

[AdrianvanWijk]

Given it is a crop sensor and you are using a speed booster, the 50mm is getting ~60% more light. So for the 50mm to have the same depth of field as the native 32mm lens you should multiply the F/stop by 1.6 (the crop factor of the sensor size). eg. F1.4 on the 32mm is equivalent to ~F2.2 on the 50mm.


So while I expect the speed booster to not have as good focus given the extra element and the tolerance in the lens mount assembly, it's not a fair comparison given the 50mm has a shallower depth of field when both lenses have the same F/stop. so it's not a relative focus comparison.

[zsmain_]

This is the perfect example of what a lens comparison should look like. Very well done and very helpful for my decision making.

[MarcoMezzini]

the 50mm + the Viltrox EF-EOS M2 cost about the half of the price of the 32mm, this must be also to consider!

[chrissnoad]

The EFM 1.4 is equivalent 51.2mm and f2.24 (x1.6) on full-frame equivalent, and depth of field is 21cm for a subject 2m away. The EF 50mm ends up being a 56.8mm and f2.04 full-frame equivalent (x0.71 x1.6) and depth of field is 15.5cm for a subject 2m away. So shooting both at their maximum apertures the EF 50mm will have a smaller depth of field and the image will appear more 'blurry' in places. Add in the fact the the EFM 1.4 is a much better lens and can be shot wide open at f1.4, whereas (in my opinion) the EF 50mm needs to be stopped down to at least f2.2 (on FF, f1.6 showing with speedboaster on eos-m and f2.5 full-frame equivalent) before the images look good enough; at this point the depth of field is 19cm, still less than the 32mm wide open.
A fairer comparison would be to keep the depth of field the same, which would mean shooting the EFM 32mm wide open at f1.4 and the EF 50mm at f1.8 (only 1cm less DOF). I'm sure the EFM 32mm will still look much better but the comparison will be more fair.
This effect if partly because the EF lens has a wider FF equivalent aperture and also because it ends up being FF equivalent 5.6mm longer focal length.
This is still a super helpful video, thanks a lot for making it!

[madcoda]

When using the 50mm without speedbooster, I usually shoot at 2.8 anyway. Won't even consider 1.2/1.4/1.8 (speedboosted) except for really low light video shooting...

[artistjoh]

The EF Nifty Fifty does not have a reputation for stellar sharpness, but I wonder how much of the difference is down to the speed booster? The speed booster could potentially compromise sharpness in two ways - firstly degradation due to the glass elements, and secondly via possible degradation of autofocus accuracy. That could be tested by trying an EF lens with known to be excellent sharpness such as the 40mm f2.8 or the 100mm 2.8 macro, or the 135 f2. It would also reveal whether or not the warmness issue is down to the nifty fifty or if it is the speed booster which is producing the warmness.

[cooloox]

That was a terrific comparison, thanks for making this video. Wow, the 32mm lens is significantly better than the 50mm lens (especially when fitted to the speedbooster adapter). The sharpness difference is amazing and even the out-of-focus areas are smoother, as you showed.

The 50mm f/1.8 is sharper without the speedbooster (another reviewer showed side-by-side images with and without the adapter), but still nowhere near as sharp as the 32mm when both lenses are wide open.

[ramonalayan]

Thanks man! This is my first time making a comment in all youtube videos I’ve seen coz this helps my dilemma choosing bet the 2. Guess have to pull the trigger on the 32s. Keep up the good work and more power from New Zealand!!!!

[edp]

Hmm... since I already have the EF 50, I think I'll go with the adapter. I usually stop down to 2.8 or 4 anyway, and of course I can use the adapter with other lenses also. Just not enough difference for my needs. CA is better on the 32, but pretty easy to fix. Thanks for doing this! Subscribed.

[CGR]

Damn, you just sold me on the 32mm. Guess I need to pick up some overtime at work to afford the price difference.

[freddumartin]

Good comparison. The $95 canon 50/1.8 is not sharp without speed booster though ;) The new 35mm is a much better glass.
I use the Tamron SP 35 and 45mm/1.8 with the speed booster on my m50 and the image quality is just phenomenal. You can find the SP 45mm on eBay for $300, I recommend it, plus it has image stabilization and you can use it on other systems as it is a standard EF mount

[jiteshpujari]

Well, it’s a good comparison. But there is one thing that I want to point out. When the 50 f1.8 is speed boosted, the max aperture shown on the camera is f1.2. So May be if you would have stopped down the 50mm to f1.4 it would given you the same dof. Another thing that supports this argument is the slight faster shutter speed on almost every image from 50mm

[MrLittlecat]

I got myself an speed booster but ended up getting the 32mm again. I find the speed booster heavier, slower focus speed and sometime it just can't focus during lowlight scenery (sunset or city light) but it work very well if manual focus. I don't do manual focus so for me 32mm is my answer.

[KRUX]

Ahhhh I finally saved up for the 32mm, arrives Tuesday 😍

[jettschenker]

I have the 32mm and in my opinion, it's the crown jewel in the EF- M lineup. 🎉🎉🎉

[dedyhuang]

thank you bro for the review, i use the viltrox and 50mm 1.8 and just found out why in this channel, yes a little warm and blur at the edge of my photo.

[ReinoldFZ]

In the portraits, technical qualities aside, I preferred the 50mm lens version. Thank you for the comparison. It's very useful.

[MariNate]

my set up is the speedbooster and 16-35 f4. I have noticed the lens to be extremely soft with the speedbooster so I mainly just use it for vlogging and video stuff now. With stills, I just use the adapter.