32mm on Amazon: amzn.to/2XeYRZR Or B&H: bhpho.to/2MWP5VP Speed Booster on Amazon: amzn.to/2M7huIt Or B&H: bhpho.to/2IGV8PT 50mm on Amazon: amzn.to/2ALiYDL Or B&H: bhpho.to/2CRjRel How much IQ loss is too much? B-Roll 1:56 Photo Comparison Begins 2:51
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.
Obviously but a lens isn't a monthly bill but you might use it every day for the next 20 years. I can certainly spare $1.60/month extra for something I will enjoy using.
@@BuhdFrankDaTank93 that’s why I’m here watching the video! Trying to decide if it’s worth the extra money, trying to start a photography business but I’m not off the ground yet, still learning. This video helped me tremendously.
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.
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...
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.
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!
Slightly shallower DOF, but looks like garbage by comparison in terms of distortion, vignetting and even more so, SHARPNESS. It's like comparing a pro lens to a kit lens.
Yeah it's important to keep in mind the Viltrox is both giving you the full 50mm (almost giving you a full frame) as well as upping the stops. My EF 100 f2 reports as a 1.4 through the booster. Drive by had upped the shutter speed in the first example to compensate, but could have also dropped aperture. That would have leveled the DOF between the two. I mentioned this above, but that 50 is kind of a mess shot wide open. The 50/1.4 does much better, and again, through a booster you're actually talking 50/0.95 or so :)
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.
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!!!!
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.
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
I heard there was a recent firmware update for the speed booster that addressed some autofocus issues. Was this review done with the latest firmware? Thanks for the review!
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
@@RodrigoAReyes95 if you need 1.8 it's a great lens, compact and sharp and I like the 35mm focal distance better than 45 or 50. The autofocus is not the fastest with the m50 when you go down to 1.8 (or 1.2 with the speed booster) like any camera when the focus depth is so shallow. Up to f2.8 or f4 it is more efficient. I ended up using this Tamron 35mm a lot more on my EOS R because the AF is better, and I'm using more the Canon 16-35 f4 IS on the m50 which give me a nice flexibility and some fantastic results. So my conclusion is if you have the m50 with kit lenses or the 22mm EFM, the Tamron is a massive step up in image quality and performance, if you can get a used L-lens (EF) from canon with the adapter or the speedbooster it would be even better but a lot heavier as well. The Tamron SP35 is my favorite prime in my 11 lenses kit.
Fred Dumartin I do have the Tamron and I know its quality, I use it on my 5D4 but I want to try a mirrorless but basic but the most basic of videos, that’s why I want this camera and not even the rp, and it’s good to know that my lens will work more than fine, thanks for the answer.
It looks quite clear that in the test of the roses the native lens focussed on the rose in the foreground and the boosted 50mm lens on the flowers more on the back. You can see the plane of focus in the stone pattern of the table top when zooming on to the vase.
Great comparison, although some of the comparisons had different focus points which threw them off somewhat. You proved that the new f1.4 32mm ef-m lens is better at 1.4 but how is it at f2.8, or better, where we mostly will use it. F1.4 is rarely used for landscapes, mostly portraits only. I feel the 50mm + Viltrox Speed Booster will probably do just fine for most photographers. Please compare the new Sigma f1.4 ef-m mount with the Canon f1.4. I am curious.
you forgot the crop factor, f4 on a crop is equivalent to f4 * 1.6 on the full frame (meaning you needed to compare to ~ f6 or f6.5). the real issue with speedbooster is reduction in image quality, mostly distortions and chromatic aberration
Oh man you solved my questions that I can’t seems to find answer for quite sometime, the image quality comparison for both is just crucial to decide if I should go for speed booster thing or without. Great awesome work done!
@@soonskiyt Dont hold your breath with canon, they will never sell out their own 4 k cinema line, regardless of the fact we are talking M series, if they do put anything out it will probably not have a mic input or something stupid you need.
@@britishboxer6875 well in fact im not aiming for 4k and want to go light weight in shooting, unless im doing it for commercial. Thanks for the insights.
@@soonskiyt they have to catch up or ketchup, seems like Nikon is a Apple and Canon is PC., Canon only applies market changes depending on moves Nikon makes, everything else depends on competition between their own lines of cameras
In the first image the 50mm produces better bokeh because the background is more compressed. To get the same image and test images you would have to take a few steps back on the 50mm or take a step closed using the 32mm. If you get closer using 32mm the background will compress drastically but will also distort
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.
Great comparison! Have you done some testing against the kit lens? I would love to see the difference in image quality and sharpness between m50 kit lens and speed boosted nifty fifty :)
After finding myself watching this for like the 3rd time and realizing I HADN'T subscribed... I quickly remedied that! Been debating the next lens for awhile for m50 already equipped with 11-22mm, 22mm f/2, kit 15-35, and a (serviceable for now) tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 with the canon adapter that is fine if stationary. Drooling over this 32, but still have been strongly considering the nifty 50 AND speedbooster so I have the benefits of a ~57mm with the viltrox or 80mm with the ability to use if I upgrade to full frame AND still pay half the price. An effective 1.2 f stop (though not the same DoF as FF), but negated if the performance is truly sub-par under f/2.8...and neither have IS for video shooting, which I do more of than photography, and your other video made it seem like keeping focus wide open in 1.4 was a bit of a headache. Then there's the opportunity cost of not picking up the native 55-200mm for handheld or hiking telephoto, or the 28mm for improved macro product shots.. or just saying screw it and going for a 24-105 or 24-70 L f/4 that will translate to a FF in the future... Sadly, as helpful as the video has been..don't think I'm any closer to pulling the trigger. That said, any additional insights from the community would be very welcome!
Hah! It's difficult living in a world with so many lens options! Sometimes you just gotta pull the trigger and find out how things go ;) Have some good news for you, though. I just finally finished an efm 22mm vs 32mm video and am uploading now. Also, I picked up the EF 40mm and a straight EFM-EF adapter to give the Viltrox Booster a fair comparison to show how much IQ is effected. Lastly, I picked up the m6 mark ii because it's release excited me. Stay tuned!
Thanks for taking time to do this video. But it is obvious you focused on different planes in many shots, most visible in the flower vase image at 8:19. I am not the only one to see it.
i also think the focussing was off on the 50mm shots. and im sure he took a bunch of shots and picked the ones that best fit his narrative. did he even mention the camera he was using? weird
The 50mm f1.8 has never been good wide open. The Viltrox SpeedBooster is known to be somewhat softer because their added lens is not as sharp as needed.
I think the point you should take from this is a budget option vs a more specific purchase. Native vs adapted. Adapted lenses are more suited at the bargain photographer. You could easily get 3 or more good cheap ef lenses adapted vs getting 1 or 2 good native primes. Which I think is most the RU-vid community.
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.
I really would have liked to have seen the 32mm compared to the speed boosted 50mm AND then the 50 without the speed booster. I wonder how much of the clarity difference is due to the qualities of the 50mm vs the qualities of the glass in the speed booster?
That's a good point, I'd have to compare between a simple EF to EFM adapter, or to a full frame with the 50, to pull out any specific deficiencies from the speed booster. Besides the odd difference in AF points recognized, the booster appears to be doing a great job allowing the m50 to use the nifty 50 at expected quality/performance.
It's the viltrox adapter. The 50mm is usually sharper wide open than with the viltrox adapter, it's definitely sharper on the Canon standard adapter, but definitely not as sharp as the 32mm lens. The 50mm usually looks sharp at f/2.8.
@@cooloox Well, the center of the 50 was always sharp, and that's only what you're using when you're using the standard adapter. The 50mm is really soft in the corners on a full frame. Always has been since it was introduced in the 70s (the formular of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 didn't change afaik since the FD-mount).
To be completely fair, you should compare the 50/1.8 lens stopped down one stop (for example, f/2 vs. f/1.4, f/2.8 vs. f/2, etc.) It wouldn't make up all of the performance difference, especially wide open (f/1.8 vs. f/2 isn't much of a difference and the 50/1.8 isn't the greatest wide open), but you'll have closer DOF, shutter speed, etc., along with a little better sharpness. I have the 32/1.4 and a speedbooster+50/1.4. I much prefer using the former, as the speedbooster's diameter interferes with my grip on the M5 (still can hold it, but it's less comfortable.) The IQ is also amazing. The SB+50/1.4 is only used for really low light and/or super-shallow depth of field (behaves like an EF-M 35/1.0.) If I could only choose one, it would be the 32/1.4, especially since the cost of the SB+50/1.4 is similar to that of the 32/1.4.
Hope you make a video compare canon 32mm f1.4 VS sigma 30mm art 1.4( of course need canon mount if we want to put sigma 30/1.4 art on canon M series). Because almost of people who use Canon M series also have Canon mount (EF/EFS-EOS), and Sigma30/1.4 art more cheaper than Canon 32/1.4. I also want to save my budget. Thank you.
I would expect the speedbooster to have some image quality loss due to the fact you're compressing a full frames worth of information into a crop sensor. But I'm curious how the adapter stacks up 1 to 1 and if you absolutely have to use the most expensive m series lens there is it should be put up against the sigma 35mm 1.4 art.
In reality, the EFM 32 is not shooting at 1.4, it's around 2.2 due to the crop factor. The EF 1.8 has never been sharp at 1.8, so it can't be sharp at 1.4, you have to stop it down to 2.2 to get an actual 1.4 or to 2.8 to get a F1.8, and you'll see much improvement in sharpness.
Hey great comparison, but I think the infinity focus on your speedbooster looks quite a bit off, I think you probably need the manually adjust the glass element in the booster as it just seems way off, I had this issue until I actually calibrated the elent properly and then fixed it in place to stop it moving as the locking screw does not stop the element from turning as it will move over time by itself
iamcolinedwards The lens element rotates within the Viltrox speed booster and the locking screw didn't seem to secure the element, I noticed focusing issue and increased softness with image and lenses I knew to be quite sharp. To test infinity focus is used a manual focus Pentax lens @f4 and focuses via liveview on a distant object(a tree)on my 80d, noted the point critical focus was achieved on the lens scale then put the same lens on the M50 with the speed booster and via liveview adjusted the element in the Viltrox speed booster until the same focus was achieved.( Liveview to focus off both the (80d/ M50)sensors as more accurate) Cleared up my issues, ps there are many videos on how to adj infinity focus on the Vitrox speed booster, but on my copy the locking screw doesn't seem to do anything to secure the Lens element in place, so although it may not be pretty I folded a small piece of card and placed it in between the screw threads of the element to stop it rotating easily out of place once set
The nifty fifty with a speed booster is not a 35mm lens. It's producing an equivalent image to what that the 35 lens would have created on a full frame. Yet is a different lens, with different depth of filed (that is why the image is more out of focus) and way cheaper than the native one. Not a good comparison to me. Of course the native lenes will take sharper results, but consider that the 50mm is faster in this setup. Look at the shutter speed. It's crazy fast
Moral of the story is just get the lens that is designed for your camera. Get the adapter if you already have other lenses lying around that you might as well use. Don't cut corners by actually buying a nifty fifty and three other lenses. You get what you pay for. Always.
Great comparison, thanks ! But if you’re after pure sharpness, you should never be throwing more glass into the equation. I think if you’re after filmic shots, especially where you’re going to be adding grain etc, the softness will really lend to the look. I shoot a lot with vintage lenses anyway. Thanks for the vid!
Great video. Did you do this for the Sigma 30mm 1.4 vs the Canon 32mm 1.4? Is it just me, or does there seem to be some contrast difference between the two setups?.. where the adapted lens looks 'more contrasty'.
@@DriveByReviews that's great video too thanks ! BTW, the Viltrox EF-EOS M2, that's the latest (as of july2020) EF-M speedbooster from Viltrox, correct?
@@eltouristoduo yes that's their booster for the EF-M mount! And on your observation... that's what I saw as well, with the 32mm having better dynamic range and color depth overall. To be fair the Canon 32mm is a phenomenal lens and was always going to be better than the nifty fifty, but I like to directly compare and see how the IQ presents side by side.
From a depth of field perspective when using a speed booster your F1.4 50mm is actually acting as F1.0 36mm so far shallower depth of field. You should also try the Metabones speed booster versus the Viltrox as there are reports that the Metabones is sharper. My personal experience with the Metabones on a 50mm F1.7 is that it is tack sharp but paper thin depth of field wide open.
Personally I thought the bokeh on the outside shots was nicer on the boosted lens, also the more saturated tones. Also, am I the only one with the trees at about 13:45 seeing a crisper image on the boosted lens, with instead of purple fringing seeing blue fringing to equal levels on the 32mm lens? Also with the outdoor portraits, dud we go through the f stop range? Seemed to be just f1.4. Also was that f stop set to f1.4 or was that what was listed on the metadata?
Great comparison. Even in 2021 Australian money, the Ef m 32 is twice the price of the 50mm, if you look at the right one. The 50mm 1.4 usm(3x the price) + speedbooster same price as the 32mm
Awesome comparison. Do you happen to have the Canon EF-M adapter? It would be interesting to see a comparison of the 50mm between Viltrox adapter and Canon adapter.
well the speed booster plus nifty fifty is at almost less than half of the 32 mm plus i get 2 focal lengths and im no professional so i went with that. but if youre a pro photographer and can earn enough money to pay for the 32 go for it.
Great work! However, the standard 50mm F1.8 is one of the worst performer in the canon range. Should use the F1.4 instead if you're alble to get your hands on one.
Wouldn't you expect more sharpness out of the native glass because shooting at 1.4 as it basically acts as a 2.24 once you consider the crop factor? Even though the field of view is similar the aperture isn't. So wouldn't your test have been more accurate if you set the 32 @1.4 and the 50 @ 2 or 2,2 and then move the fstop up with each considering the 1.6 and 1.1 crop factors? Or perhaps even the 50mm 1.4 since its more in the same league as the 32mm?
No, the crop factor does not work like that. Even if you have deeper DOF on the native lens does not mean it is guaranteed to be sharper. Gerald Undone has a video about how full frame lense and apsc lenses work and I suggest you watch it. The most useful comparison is comparing the lenses at the largest aperture since it is the main selling point and most people will be using this for portraits. I don't care about comparing the sharpness once stopped down. Of course, when you have different apertures you need to consider all factors such as sharpness, bokeh, CA, and flaring. Seems like the native lens is winning on everything except for bokeh.
@@khuo0219 Actually you are supposed to multiply the Fstop by crop factor on apsc to figure your effective depth of field in regards to aperture. I do agree though that it is not the only factor involved in sharpness which is why I think this is a bad comparison to begin with. It should have been compared to a better ef lens than the nifty fifity on the speedbooster. There is a reason its only a little more than a hundred bucks.
Thanks for this one! It was good to see this comparison. I've been very happy with the 32mm but I'd been wanting to see the side by side with the boosted 50mm. I've also heard a lot of people mention the boosted setup can cause extra battery drainage. I've also heard the auto focus is much more audible and a potential sound wrecker with the boosted setup. Have you noticed either of these issues with the speed booster?
At first I thought mine wasn't draining as I had it on overnight with no problem, but a different night the booster did end up draining the battery. Haven't noticed a significant difference in longevity of charge while in use, however. Just the leeching overnight issue. You can hear the AF sound for yourself on my low light video test here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_83vf7AR6fY.html and jump to it with my time stamp in the top comment. It was light but audible (with audio control on auto) but quiet enough it could be remedied with manual control.
I don't know but I did my own comparison with the Viltrox Speed Adapter + 50mm 1.8 STM and the Canon Adapter + 50mm 1.8 STM, the Canon adapter is apparently sharper, I compared it with the same zoom level as the Viltrox Speed Adapter, But what I did notice is that the Viltrox Adapter has a very slight misfocus, hence why it is a little blurry, surprisingly, manual focus will make it as sharp as the Canon adapter counterpart, No difference whatsoever, so, I'm guessing this test that you did with your video, focus is a little bit off because of the Viltrox Adapter? I don't know, tell me guys what you think.
So the only thing I would offer up here is that the Viltrox is a game changer when paired with better EF lenses. It should be noted the degraded IQ here is 100% due to the lens. That 50 is notoriously bad when shot wide open. If you wanted to keep the costs down, I would consider pairing something like a Takumar 50 1.4 with the Viltrox. It's manual, but nevertheless a fantastic lens. Otherwise, if you are already a Canon shooter with some EF lenses, I can't recommend the Viltrox enough. Personally, I am using a Fuji XT3 along with my Canon stuff, and it's fantastic to be able to use all my lenses on both bodies. :)
I have both the EF 35 1.4 L and EF-M 32mm 1.4 , and the native lens outperform the L glass XD Thats how good the EFM 32mm is... comparison between the EF 50mm 1.8 to this lens its unfair.
@@EinzMY will be hard to answer with out doing some proper testing... As you already know, the Ef-M 32mm its sharper than the 50mm when mounted in a EFM Camera. But Fullframe has some key advantages. Im confident that the 6D2 will be sharper at any aperture beyond F/5.6 because FF sensors are less proun to diffraction, but wide open im not sure. (Compared against the EOS M50) I guess the M6 mk2 that was recently realese, paired with a 32mm will be sharper Wide open than the 6D2 with the 50mm 1.8 STM... but it has to be tested to confirm that 2.
On the 2nd set of pics, I am not sure what specs you are showing. The left image has what appears to be correct data. However, on the right image you are showing specs of 1/160 @ f-1.4, ISO 100 @ 35mm. That's kinda hard to get with a EF50mm f-1.8 STM
Thanks for the video. I really had these questions in my mind for some time now but I'm glad you did clear most of them. I wanted to ask you a few more though. Bear with me lol 😅 1.On the M-50 we've a crop factor issue while filming 4k using a native 22mm lens. Applying a speed booster reduces the crop factor to some extent but does it degrade the quality of the video in comparison to a native lens? (Since 4k on a native lens with such crop factor is garbage) 2. Substituting a speed booster with a normal adapter (50mm lens mounted) how much of a difference can we find in quality of the image and video?
My real estate set up is a Canon M50 w/ the Laowa 9mm f2.8 ef-m mount lens. Which equates to a 13.5mm full frame. Is there a Viltrox speed booster or anything that will allow me to get better/wider 4k and allow more light in? I run into some houses with very poor natural light.
I picked up the Laowa as well. The speed booster will only work with the EF lens options. So you have some like the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM you could boost, however the booster itself in adding elements will always lead to worse IQ. Also you'll have a slightly less FOV than the 14mm but get improved light by 1 stop (so 1.8 which should be plenty for even lower light) Would be interesting to test it out. My main solution using native lenses (like the Laowa 9mm) is to extend the exposure on a tripod, rather than messing with a booster.
at f/4, why is it that the 50mil has higher ISO? does it mean that at certain situations a speed boosted set up needs more ISO with the same amount of light?
Even though the whole focal length is almost equivalent, the 50 still is a different lens and I'm wondering if the speed booster is not screwing with focus or just doesn't have as good glass...
That 50mm is not the sharpest even on an ef mount camera. I’m assuming the build quality of that ef-m lens is superior to that cheap nifty fifty. Hopefully we can see a comparison with a better 50m that is known to provide sharper images
Which 50mm do you suggest? the 50mm 1.4 is no good, the 50 1.2L is not in the same league in price, the 50mm sigma 1.4 is huge, the 45mm tamron sp is closer but still pretty big (add the adaptor) it is not the same form factor. The manual focusing lenses are not comparable since you want the AF for the M50. So I think the nifty fifty is the most useful comparison.
@@Jason.rimando Maybe it is just me but I do care about the weight and size, as well as balance even if I am adapting. It is even more important on a small camera such as the M50. At certain points you will not be able to use small tripods such as the Joby 3kg without the camera tipping over with so much weight in the front.
YMMV...... Hope Viltrox keeps updating firmware to cater for older/cheaper Canon lenses. Not everyone has latest Canon lenses.... e.g. no support for older lenses like plastic 35mm F2 (pre STM).
Im still confused, if i use ef 50mm on "not speedbooster", which will be 80mm on full frame, will i get same compression(or close) with 85mm+speedbooster?
I think imma go with adapter... Not working as profesional yet, still taking job from the village, and still learning... Sometimes i shoot photo with an old 1100d, and sometimes i shoot video with my cheap eos m10 mirrorless... Been thinking about buying ttartisan 35 1.2 efm and nifty fifty efs, but buying 50mm ef + speedbooster can help me get both, and the adapter can be use when i get another ef lens...
I had the speed booster and the nifty fifty and I used it a few times, it was garbage especially wide open. The auto focus was not accurate and it was not sharp. I had to buy the native canon 32 mm. Oh boy! It’s the sharpest lens for the canon ef-m cameras. It’s expensive, but it’s worth it. A few weeks later, I got rid of my nifty fifty and kept the speedbooster.
I have the 32MM for my M50. I can only say, amazing! Probably the most sharpest lenses out of any primes for EF-M available. One of the best in general. Perfect low light, great for portraits, also they are excellent for landscape if you don't need the zoom 👍. Second best to me are 18-150MM. Best all around. They also have more focus points than 32MM. Makes more image in focus, but ofc they can't compare much in optical and image quality with 32MM.
@@NamasteLungwaVlog Well depends on which one. The EF-M is a standard, made for the M50 and M50 MK II. No adapter needed, as for other lens mounts, you need to use it.
@@35259edgarboudaher good question. It was for a couple reasons. I wanted to keep the comparison as "fair" as possible so using the same F stop and ISO helps minimize variables that could contaminate the test. Also, from what I understand the depth of field doesn't change from the speed booster, so the bokeh at fastest F stop 1.2 will present the same as the 1.8 on a simple adapter. The Speed Booster reduces focal length and increases lens speed, but it doesn't change the entrance pupil at all; so no change to DOF and the bokeh. Now that we're talking about it I realize it would be very interesting to see the adapter shot compared to the boosted shot to see this DOF similarity, with FOV and light difference, demonstrated side by side.
I have this len 50mm f1.8. to make this become 2 focal length, i buy the speedbooster (FF 56mm) and regular adapter ( FF 80mm) with total $125+$37+$150= $315! way to go..
Turns out the Metabones speedbooster is noticably sharper away from the center vs the Viltox, and possibly a tiny tiny bit sharper overall. This has not been covered by YT well. I found only one video that showed that. Most others seem to conclude the Viltrox competes with the metabones on IQ. It doesn't. Yeah of course it's like 1/4 the cost, but it's soft off center. A lot of time you would not care. But just so we know, there is a real difference there.
@@DriveByReviews Also I just leaned the speedboosters have adjustable fine focus that user can do ! (from another TY vid.) There is tiny set screw or something and you can rotate the element which moves it on some fine thread. I saw this can make it more parafocal, so think maybe that might not only mean it works better on a zoom, but may work better on more primes if adjusted. Or maybe there is a different optimal adjustment for different primes, idk. I sorta doubt that but idk. It was on a video about Viltrox vs Metabones for MFT. It was about adjusting the Viltrox I think, but I think both or all brands are adjustable. Idk if Metabones comes more consistently and better adjusted from factory or not. Idk if adjusting can help with problem of decreasing sharpness farther from center, I sorta doubt that. but again I really don't know. Is a deep subject that keeps revealing itself like an onion lol. I never would have thought adjusting was a thing with them. I don't think that is a thing with lenses.
@@eltouristoduo I'll have to look into that. Speed boosters are pretty unique but since the mount should be static one would think adjusting wouldn't be necessary with a properly made booster.
@@DriveByReviews Yes it is surprising but that seems to be true at least of one of the Viltrox models. I've not pursued it more yet but my impression is at least one other brand is adjustable. I don't know if it's wrong to imagine a one-size-fits-all element might be better placed just slightly differently for different lenses though, I guess. I think a 'real lens expert' could speak to that.
@@DriveByReviews for example: www.metabones.com/article/of/infinity-adjustment-speed-booster-only but that also opens the concern that maybe not all brands and models of boosters are adjusted as well as others from the factory.
This is an interesting test, but results are as expected. 50mm at 1.8 is really bad: chromatic aberration and softness. That lens is good starting at 2.8. It was impossible to get good results wide open with sped booster. But I think your test shows that 50mm boosted performs better than I expected. If you reduce a little the aperture, I think results will be very very good. Thank you for your video.
Great comparison I've been waiting for on RU-vid. I hate using adapters. I wish Canon would make more EF-M lenses. They are sleek sharp and lightweight. There are third party EF-m lenses that would work for portrait and stills but most aren't very sharp and are ccompletely manual. I'm waiting for a 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 a 10-20mm f2.8 and a zoom lense with at least 300mm reach for the M series.
Well, the 32mm 1.4 is already getting pretty large. I am not sure the market will support something like an 85mm f1.4. Kinda defeats the purpose of the "travel camera" "casual shooting" style Canon as designed the M-series for. Same thing holds for a 300mm since the AF speed on the M-series will limit its usability for sports and wildlife shooting. I will probably buy the 32mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.4 (if it ever shows up), but stick with the small aperture zooms. Then again, I have a 5DMarkIII and a 70-200mm 2.8 for what the M50 cannot do.
@@khuo0219 Canon has been able to shrink their lenses for the M series. Without making more M mount lenses Canon mirrorless users are forced to use an adapter and the already large EF or EF-S lenses. I believe the M series are capable of doing a lot more than just that with proper lenses. The M50 should be able to handle a 300mm focal length.
