Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM + Viltrox M2 vs. EF-M 32mm f1.4 | OEM adapter & EF 85mm f1.8 as well…

Hey, this is Scott of Photography Banzai. Today we’re going to take a big look
at the EF 50 millimeter f/1.8 STM. Mostly with the Viltrox
EF EOS M2 speed booster versus the 32 millimeter f/1.4 for the EF-M system.
With field of view they’re very similar with this setup. But I do
have a few other ones I’m gonna be using the OEM adapter on the 50 for a little bit.
And also the 85 millimeter EF lens with the different adapters, just for a little
bit of comparison to the 50. Lots to look at… We’re gonna do autofocus in video
tests and also looking at the images for these two setups in detail. Zoom in to close-up. So what I can do in this
program is unlock and lock the images, which is nice! We can see definitely a lot
less detail in the 50 plus the Viltrox at f/1.2. This is f/1.4 on
the 32 millimeter lens. Let’s go to the edge of the image. Same situation.
Not really a big difference between the edge versus the center of the 50 plus the Viltrox.
Let’s go to the corner… Zoom out a little bit. We can see there’s
some curvature here. Definitely less detail. There could be again some slight
difference here. Because these books are relatively straight. Check the other side.
Here we go… This might be slightly better on the
side, but still, you can see so much less detail on the 50 plus Viltrox
at 1.2. Let’s jump up to 1.8… See here, there is an improvement at 1.8
with the 50 and the Viltrox, but still the 32 millimeter lens is
a lot better. Let’s go to the edge. Same situation… See some more curvature and
such as well. So it is better than 1.2, 1.4, but still there is not much detail.
And still some weird curving. Definitely visually a big benefit to the 32 in this
specific situation. Jump up to 2.8. Look at the images I can tell there is
definitely an improvement on the 50 plus the Viltrox. Zoom in to the center.
Huge improvement compared to the 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 on the 50 and the Viltrox.
The glowing is pretty much gone. There’s more detail… Just looks nice in that situation.
Let’s try the edge, same thing you can see this “Noah” right here
definitely looks better on the 32. But it is a nice improvement over
previous apertures. if we look at the edges, still a huge difference with that speed
booster, the Viltrox, the edges are one of the worst areas of course. You can see
and you can tell right here. Jump up to 5.6 1/50th of a second.
At this point they look very similar. I’m not sure if there is a difference. Let’s go to the
edge. Here you can still see the 32 is a lot better on the edge compared to the 50
and Viltrox, but that is an improvement over 2.8. Jump up
to f/8. Really don’t see any difference at f/8 in the center. Let’s try the edge.
Still I think the 32 is better at f/8 on the edge of the frame compared to
the 50 and Viltrox. Let’s try the top corner. Same situation, there is
definitely some curving still. You do have more detail than it did have, but in
these little lines here there’s still more visible detail on the 32
millimeter lens. Taking a look at the lenses physically. The apertures inside
are actually very different between the 32 millimeter lens and the 50. I think
the 50 might be a little bit more round towards the smaller end of the
apertures. The 32 is also very nice, but there are some situations with aperture
that it doesn’t look super rounded. But overall they look pretty nice. Of course
you can look at the background blur and images and decide on that. The 50 plus the Viltrox is heavier, thicker…
larger than the 32 millimeter lens. That’s something to keep in mind when
you’re considering one set up or the other. Of course, with price currently the
32 millimeter lens is quite a bit more expensive than this set up if you buy
the adapter and the lens itself. So it’s actually probably nearly double the
price. I took a quick picture with the phone at f/2.8 for all of them. Not
going to show you these other pictures in this set because they’re not super
interesting, but definitely you can tell the different field of view with a
person. I think that’s a helpful look. So we have the Viltrox with the 50. We
have the 50 with the OEM adapter, and then in the center we have the 32
millimeter lens. Now they’re all sets the same settings. 1/60th second,
ISO 400, f/2.8. We can see… a look difference between all of them. Especially with the
different adapters compared to the.. with the 50 on the Viltrox and OEM. But you
can still see the widest one is the 32 millimeter lens. Zoom in. So they all got
focus properly here. I was, again, using the app to focus on myself. But I did do
a timer I believe and there’s some variation potentially with that because
I’m just gonna be moving around. Let’s keep zooming in. I think any one of
these are definitely good enough. There might be some slight variation with the
focus, but people situations, I wouldn’t complain with any of these. Because
usually you put the person towards the center of the frame. So any issues with a
speed booster… You probably won’t have too much of a problem in this specific
situation with a person. Zoom in! So they look very similar at f/8. See if there’s more information… I think there might be a little bit more fringing on
the 50 plus the Viltrox combo compared to the 32 millimeter
lens. But besides that they look similar. The edges are worse on the Viltrox.
No surprise… At 5.6 I think there is more detail in
the 32. No surprise there. That should be where the focal point was.. around this
area. See here it falls off quicker with the 50 plus the Viltrox combo for some reason. Here we have the 50 with the Viltrox at f/1.2, 1.4, and then the 32
millimeters lens at 1.4. See a difference in exposure. This is a little
bit darker than this one over here. If we look in this bottom area. You can see
that’s a little brighter. Zoom in… I’m guessing that the J, again, was the focal
point. Just centered these up. You can see the field of view difference. A little
bit wider on the 32. This combo isn’t terrible looking. It looks pretty decent.
I would definitely use that picture if I wanted to. Look on the edges. More detail
on the 32, no surprise. But there could be just other differences as well. Here in this one we’re at f/8 with the two
different setups. Don’t see any issues when they’re compacted like this. Zoom in…
See if we see any differences in the colors. They look so similar. It’s hard to see any
difference really. Let me align these a little better. I do think there is more
detail on the 32, no surprise. I say that a lot… Here we’re at f/1.8 for both of them
with the same settings besides that. See the different field of
view. You can see in this one there is definitely some blurriness to it. Try…
This looks like the sharpest area, under that ‘C’. There is fringing for sure at f/1.8 on the Viltrox plus the 50 combo. In these tests I have the 50
milliliter lens with the OEM adapter, so I had to move that back quite a bit
compared to the 32 millimeter lens. But I wanted to see if the
Viltrox really makes a big difference in image quality. At f/1.8 the 32
millimeter lens is better, but it’s not nearly as bad for the 50 compared to
when I was using the Viltrox connected to it. On the edge here…
Definitely see a benefit to the 32 millimeter lens compared to the 50
with the standard adapter. Got some glowing on here. It’s just not as good.
So that glowing issue is potentially just part of the lens itself. Not
necessarily a huge thing with the Viltrox. Look at the bottom edge… This is actually
very similar, but still more detail on the 32. Let’s try the other side real
quick. Just to see if there’s a difference. Nope still we have the
glowing. But actually if we look closer I see more detail in this little spot
compared to the 32. The lines are just a little bit more defined. It’s.. But the ‘L’, for example has that glow effect to it at 1.8. Let’s jump up to 2.8… Now here they are very similar. Maybe…
look at this little dot here. I think there’s a little bit more definition in
32 dot then then the 50 with the standard adapter. Yeah, there’s just
more detail. The lines are crisper. There’s a little bit less contrast on
the 50 in that case. Check the edge… Ahh, there’s some fringing on the 50, but
detail wise it is similar. Yeah… definitely better on the 32 on this
bottom area. At 5.6 they are very similar. The fifty might actually
have a little bit more information. It’s hard to tell. Well actually the 32… the lines are just a little bit crisper
in some areas. Try to edge. So in this case the edge of the 50 millimeter
lens looks better. There’s more detail than the 32, so that’s
interesting. And still I think there’s a bit more contrast. So at 5.6
the 50 is a good option if you’re shooting around there. Let’s try this
spot. Yeah, so good results for the 50 at 5.6 with the OEM adapter. Oh
yeah, so this could be partly the lighting. It should be very similar, but
still there is a difference. You’ve get some purple fringing, and it’s not visible in
this case. So that’s a good result for the 50. Jump up to f/8… I don’t know it’s
too hard to tell… Center… Go to the side here.
Check out this… ahhhh. Again, with the fringing. We’ve got the
purple, kind of yellow, and then this one is the red blue. But they are very.. very
similar. I think there is more color. More vibrant.. vibrancy to the 50 in this
case. Let’s check this out… Yeah, both of them look good.
I would not complain in this situation. So yeah I actually think the 50 is
slightly better over here and this edge. So that was a big detailed look at the
50 millimeter with the Viltrox mostly versus the 32 millimeter lens. Of
course, we had the OEM adapter and the 85 to look at a little bit as well. With these
setups you’re gonna have a big price difference. The 32 millimeter lens is
pretty expensive for what it is, in general. But you do get nice consistent
high quality images out of it. The autofocus is decent enough in video
situations. Especially with the limiter switch on, and of course you can focus
pretty close with that limiter switch off. And then you’ve got the 50 millimeter lens
with the Viltrox gonna be lower-cost. Even buying both of those pieces. Or you
can get the OEM adapter, or you can get some third-party adapter that
potentially works just as well as the OEM one. A lot of options. You’re gonna
spend less with this setup, but you won’t have that perfect native performance of
the 32. And image quality wise the 50 doesn’t really stack up in a lot of the
aperture ranges. But once you hit f/8 it actually is a little bit better in some
areas of the image, as far as I can tell compared to the 32 millimeter lens. So if
you want to shoot those narrow apertures definitely it’s a mix up. Really doesn’t
matter too much, but if you want to do large aperture stuff… The 32 is probably
the best bet in the system. Anyways, it’s gonna be up to you if the price, the
quality, the consistency or whatever is the most important thing for you. Hope you
enjoyed this video. Took a lot of effort to put together, but it was interesting I
was curious myself to see how these things all stacked up together. Hope you
enjoyed the video. I’m Scott from Photography Banzai. If you did enjoy the video please
consider subscribing, that helps me out a lot. Likes and shares help out a lot as well. Thanks again!

16 Replies to “Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM + Viltrox M2 vs. EF-M 32mm f1.4 | OEM adapter & EF 85mm f1.8 as well…”

  1. On your vlog videos your normal commentary like on your M50 settings video What is your setting for that – ? I had it on neutral and got bad quality but on auto my pic quality for video is 5 * * 1 0 2

  2. This was well done!! You sold me on the EF-M 32mm!! This was such a detailed experiment 👌🏻 also, all those head shots of yourself were oddly entertaining! Lol.

  3. Great video. I am currently using the M50 with the 50mm and the viltrox speedbooster for the videos in my channel. I used also the 50mm with the regular adapter and I didn't notice any major loss of quality. I haven't tried the 32mm yet… Would you advise me to get it or for the videos I am doing it's fine what i already have and wouldn't be worth it? Another thing… I noticed the 32mm focus sometimes seems a little slower that the 50mm with speedbooster…or it's just my impression? Thanks for posting this video… Really useful,, clear and well explained.

  4. Thanks fore comparing the three: EF-M vs EF (OEM adapter) and EF (Viltrox). Definitely, EF-M scored the best – but need to find those lenses used if possible. Otherwise gets expensive.

  5. Great video Scott! I always want to see the usage of these EF-M lenses. A question, in the video you used the 50mm f/1.8but in the first minute you wrote f/1.4 for the 50mm. Is it because it used Viltrox' speed booster?

  6. I will shoot mainly for a conversation footage or near objects footage. Well I desired to have my videos kinda cinematic style with well blurred background. What lens should I pick? For phothography purposes 32mm is surely the winner. But for videography??

  7. Hi! Does autofocus work with the Viltrox speed booster and the STM Canon lenses? I have an M50 and the 55-250mm STM lens..I'm hoping to use it with the Viltrox Speed booster. But I've read comments that say the STM lens don't have autofocus with the adapter?

  8. Actually this not a fair comparison. if you use 50mm with and without viltrox comparison. it'd be great. because 50mm itself is lower in quality when compared with 35mm lens. if we want to know the quality of viltrox, do this test 50mm with and without viltrox test

  9. …awesome vlog … BS ….just good reviews of two great lenses. As I don't pixel peep, I may just go ahead with the nifty 50

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *