Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.
Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?
They are cheap to make being a simple, almost unmodified planar design, and were originally popular as a budget prime lens. The Nikkor 50 f2 was a pancake design but set deep into a 50 f1.4 barrel so it didn't look like one, and was sold as a budget option. Pentax introduced the 40mm f2.8 pancake in 1976 to go with its new miniature MX & ME, again a budget option but also very small to complement the small size of the two new cameras. One of the drawbacks of the design is that they are relatively slow, but they are very good across the frame.
So the advantages are small, cheap but high quality. The disadvantage is that they are relatively slow.
How does a 24mm pancake stack up against a very fine 24 f2.8 IS in the line up ? The pancake will have to be cheaper and won't have IS. It may also be slower than 2.8.
This lens would go very well with the SL1, ( 24mm makes more sense than 40 on crop) and indeed my FF cameras because personally speaking I disagree with those that say a 70-200 round your neck all day is no problem. The 40mm pancake on say a 6D radically alters both the weight and balance of the camera, making it very little different to carrying a compact of some sort; you just don't know it's there. It is also very discrete. I find the 40 a great lens for 'walk about', landscape, Panoramics etc. I don't find it that useful for 'events' such as a wedding.
If Canon introduced a high quality, small cheap 24/28 pancake with metal mount I'll buy one.