already have the 50mm f/1.4 - does the 40mm f/2.8 make any sense?

[rj79in]

I wanted to check out the 40mm (primarily because of its "chic" looks) but already have the 50mm f/1.4. Just wondering whether the 40mm does anything that the 50mm does not with respect to IQ?

[old_york]

My 40mm arrived about 30 mins ago.

If i get time later to today (busy day so no promises) I'll take them both out and try and get some comparison shots.
first impressions:
     1- It's TINY! Looks hilarious on 5D3.
     2- Bokeh is VERY good.
     3- Looks like it's real nice IQ for the price.

[Sporgon]

Being modern lens and coating and made for digital I find it handles the graduation to highlights and lowlights better than 50 1.4.

Being a film era lens the 50 has quite abrupt contrast, so it's a benefit in low contrast lighting but the 40 has the advantage in high contrast situations.

Given the price it was an obvious purchase for me !

[filo64]

I got the 40mm STM because I only really liked the 50mm 1.4 from f/2.8 upwards and didn't use it anymore once I got the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. The small size of the 40mm is a big plus when you are disappointed by your next best camera and want to carry your SLR in your backpack more often. I also like the close focusing ability of the 40mm.

[sanfranchristo]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Yes. It's a joy to use, the image quality is very good, and it's relatively inexpensive so if you're even curious, just get it. It quite easily fits in a pocket so if there were times when you didn't have your 50mm available (say you were out and about with just a telephoto or needed to travel particularly light), it allows you to have a reasonably fast and wide option handy at all times. It's almost worth it just for the comically small size, especially on a full-frame body. This also makes it a great option for street photography - it's as inconspicuous as you can get with a full-frame and is arguably the perfect focal length (appeasing those in either the 35mm or 50mm "normal" camps).

[candyman]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Yes. It's a joy to use, the image quality is very good, and it's relatively inexpensive so if you're even curious, just get it. It quite easily fits in a pocket so if there were times when you didn't have your 50mm available (say you were out and about with just a telephoto or needed to travel particularly light), it allows you to have a reasonably fast and wide option handy at all times. It's almost worth it just for the comically small size, especially on a full-frame body. This also makes it a great option for street photography - it's as inconspicuous as you can get with a full-frame and is arguably the perfect focal length (appeasing those in either the 35mm or 50mm "normal" camps).

Exactly why I bought it.

[Mr Bean]

first impressions:
     1- It's TINY! Looks hilarious on 5D3.
     2- Bokeh is VERY good.
     3- Looks like it's real nice IQ for the price.

^^^
This. And its dirt cheap. I love my 50 1.4, but the IQ from the 40 is brilliant. Better than my Canon 35mm f2, IMHO. I was using both today for a static subject, with slightly different results.

[Scarpz13]

I have both as well.
While i was generally happy with my 50mm 1.4 I had a very low keeper rate below f2. It seems kind of mushy so really I was mostly using it at f2.8 anyway unless it was very dark.
The pancake is super sharp wide open and I find I'm taking it with me instead of the 50mm 9 times out of 10. And at the price you cant go wrong. After all It's cheaper than the 77mm circular polarizer I just bought for my 24-105!

[TrumpetPower!]

The (ungripped) 5DIII with the Shorty McForty and a wrist strap is the ultimate P&S. At first glance by a non-photographer, it just looks like a high-end P&S. The next time you're at a party, etc., and would otherwise reach for your iPhone, put it in green square mode and turn on live view. Maybe even pass it around the table. Nobody will realize that it's the reigning IQ / low light monster that it is until they see the prints.

If I were a wedding photographer, I'd definitely do some reception / dance shots like that, as an inconspicuous "guest" in the thick of things and just another random schmuck there with a camera.

Cheers,

b&

[spinworkxroy]

My answer is also a NO.
I had both for a while.
I bought the 40 because i thought it would make a good body cap that shoots…
I had it for about 6mths and sold it becuase during that 6mths, i never used it once.
then again, i also almost never use my 50 f1.4…because i too bought the Sigma 85 f1.4 and neither the 50 or 40 can match it's IQ so i just don't use them.

However, between the 50 and the 40, if i were to only  choose 1, i'd choose the 50…becauase you can shoot at 1.4 if you need to…granted the 50 isn't as sharp as the 40…but i i'd sacrifice the IQ for the 1.4 capabilities...

[rj79in]

Thanks to everyone!

Given the +ve reaction to the 40mm, I'm tempted. Will try it out.

[EvilTed]

It's $150 dude...

Get it and have fun with it.

ET

[Dylan777]

The only lens cap that you can take pictures with very friendly to carry around with DSLR

[rj79in]

The only lens cap that you can take pictures with very friendly to carry around with DSLR

Yeah ... I hope the images with the lens cap doesn't have a light leak issue

[christianronnel]

The only lens cap that you can take pictures with very friendly to carry around with DSLR

lol Dylan.  I thought the same thing when I purchased it.  If I hated it I can still use it as a lens cap when traveling.  My camera will always have a lens on it.  Now, I only really use it for this purpose.  There's a certain look from the 50mm that I can't get with this 40mm and the STM focus is rather slow.  IQ wise, the 50 1.4 seems sharper at f2.8 (on full frame).  But that could just be my copies, no AFMA on either of them.  Additionally, not being able to pre-focus the 40mm made it unusable for street photography or general walk-around lens.

So for anyone wondering,  I say don't bother.