please tell me the price of canon m50 with Canon 32mm f/1.4 EF-M and i have herd that if we buy Canon 32mm f/1.4 EF-M the price will be less the actual price is it true ?????? which one is better for portrait photography canon 32 mm 1.4 or canon 50mm 1.8???

Ugh. I should pre-order that right now. I just bought the m6 mark ii though! I need a month vacation to catch up on my channel to-do list!

Also the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for less 🙌🏽🙏🏽

Yeah, the price is right on the 30mm I'm thinking it was the only new lens of the three that had any competition. I'm glad to see any new lenses available for the efm mount. Maybe they will make a fast zoom too.

@@DriveByReviews There is a youtube VOID on reviewing this lens, and it could revitalize ef-m low light vlogging- you've crushed all of these man, if you can get to it before the usual suspects, you'll probably top the algorithm! Even just a "first look" vid, and whether you recommend it (saving the more in-depth specs like this one as you catch up on your queue). Frankly, just shocked by how little is out there on this one. The 30 seems a coin flip with the canon 32 you just compared, and the 56 a welcome telephoto, but us budget conscious folks can just adapt a nifty 50... but this 16mm... This can be a game changer, and there are only a handful of folks even discussing it. Anyway, thanks for this fantastic vid as promised!! Keep it up, man!

@@jonathanwise84 So true. You just reminded me that Sigma offered to loan me this lens. But I think I'll order it tomorrow based on this comment alone. You're right for sure and I'm curious to see it myself.

would you recommend the 16mm or the 30mm for KZfaq videos?

@@emocraps07 Both are great. It really depends on how big your room is. If you are filming in tight corners get the 16mm and if you have a bit more room than get the 30mm. You could use your kit lens to get a feeling for the best focal length.

....you wish....

You mean 18:50

Check out the newish Sigma 16/1.4

22mm can’t go wrong with a wider shot.

I hope you're joking? Better shot and light control quality? What's that in English? The 32mm lens is much sharper, has a shallower depth of field and less distortion. The 32mm is clearly a superior lens.

Frames is not a measure in that. It is one f-stop faster. That means it lets in twice as much light so you can use either half the shutter speed or half the ISO.

I'll put it on the list. Apparently there's a new EFM 16mm Sigma I should pick up as well

Externally recorded with these kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bJiTlJh1xJjLdok.html

by 35 do you mean the 22 which has FOV like a full frame 35? the Canon 32 and 22 in this video both face track well, but the 32mm is slower at AF. I have a whole video on its AF speed comparing to the fastest and most accurate for video AF

@@DriveByReviews sorry, i meant the 32!! I'll check the other video, thanks!

It was the 40mm amzn.to/2OoEnK5 boosted on the Viltrox Speedbooster amzn.to/2Omb37c which I haven't made a review video for yet, but is awesome.

Get the Canon, it is far more compact. Also the 22 mm focal length is more general purpose. The Sigma is a more special purpose lens. You should know if you need it.

That also means I’m applying the 1.6x crop so 1.6 x 22 = 35. Or is the 22mm true to size since it’s a EF-M lens

@@AHeroicOrange Old comment you probably already figured it out, but lens descriptions do no account for crop, they give the true mm length of the lens. So any lens you must multiply by 1.6 for canon APSc to get FF equivalent. Sometimes equivalent is listed, but it clearly will state that. Cell phones like to say F2 - 80mm or whatever which is a lie, but camera gear will either say the actual length or the length followed by the equivalent.

loved it when I was reviewing it. Did you watch that video? It does have IS! I demonstrated it incrementally as you can add on the m50 + the lens IS. Only thing I didn't like was how poorly it works in low light at F4. Wish they made it a prime lens as I only use it at 11mm.

Drive By Reviews totally agreed!

Generally 22mm. However since I have them all this is how it breaks down. 11-22 used when I want the whole room in the shot OR well lit slow motion shots. 32mm when I want subject separation (large bokeh). 22mm for all around run-n-gun vlogging. I've been having fun with the Viltrox Speedbooster lately and FYI: the intro shot & lens comparison shots to this video is the EF 40mm boosted amzn.to/35MBtWd

Drive By Reviews thanks for your reply! Do you have any image stabilisation issues when just using the 22mm or would you use a gimbal for vlogging with the 22? So far your reviews have been the best in comparing the EF M lenses!! The 11-22 has a wide field of view and image stabilisation but the aperture is not low enough for low light and on the other hand the 22 is good for low light but I’m worried about shakiness when vlogging. I’m not really moving that much - the most is walking or panning but just not sure if there would be a lot of shake. Thoughts?

@@ClaraZeela hah I said that almost exactly about the 11-22 on a different reply here😆 Overall if you are intentional about holding the camera close to the body and keep it steady the shots look good. There will always be that "amateur" look without any IS but people tend to like that on vlogs and YT. Gimbals smooth it out nicely (the ak4000 gimbal video I recently posted shows this) but if you don't need pro level stability its not worth the added effort/bulk. That said there is plenty of footage I toss because it was too abrupt/shakey/displeasing when shooting with non stabilized lens options.

Drive By Reviews Thanks !! Trying to see if I can save myself from lugging around so many lenses - guess I’ll have to try using the 22 and make sure I don’t drink too much coffee to see if that works later ! Tx so much for the advice and keep the great videos coming !!

planning to. Just got the 16mm sigma and working on that now. EDIT* done! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mtmmo6yTqqvFlKM.html

@@DriveByReviews okay nice

speedboosted or just straight adapter?

@@DriveByReviews its a native efm trio. 16mm, 30mm and 56mm 1.4 dc dn. Only on sigma website at the moment. No third party retailers yet.

@KingSam Prove it! I bet the Canon 32mm is sharper than the Sigma 30mm. If you're as cluey as you seem to think you are, you would have noticed something being done wrong in this video. He kept moving the images around BEFORE they had a chance to finish rendering in Lightroom, so they never appeared sharp. Each time you move an image, it has to re-render the new framing. It takes a few seconds on the computer used in this video. At one point I was getting so frustrated because I wanted to see the sharpness difference and the images suddenly became clear (completed rendering) and he immediately moved the images again! Aaahhhh. So I didn't even get a chance to compare. Watch some other reviews of this lens, it's amazingly sharp and I very much doubt the Sigma will match it. At least one reviewer said the Canon is sharper, but that doesn't mean it is, obviously. As for the Sigma "destroying it", you might want to grow up with your childish statements. If the Sigma is better, it'll be marginal, at best, but unlikely.

Just one tip. When showing us a lens comparison, please let the images finish rendering before moving them. Each time you move them you have to wait again. I noticed your computer takes a few seconds to render and you kept moving the images prematurely, so they were always soft. The one and only time I saw them 'snap into focus' (render fully) you immediately moved them again. It was very frustrating. Other than that, great video. Edit: in my frustration I didn't realise I hadn't seen all of the video. My comments apply to when you were the model on the bridge.

What about the autofocus for video though 🤔