Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

[PerfectSavage]

Because of the 40/2.8 I have decided to not get the 35/1.4 II anymore.

You might want to rethink that.  That's kinda like saying because of STM in the T4i, I don't need that 1Dx anymore.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.

The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty".  I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body.  I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired.  I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter.  I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF?  Really?  If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF.  The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.

Interesting.  Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine.  Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you.  Sharper and more consistent?  Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.

My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).

[J.R.]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.

The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty".  I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body.  I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired.  I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter.  I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF?  Really?  If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF.  The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.

Interesting.  Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine.  Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you.  Sharper and more consistent?  Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.

My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).

+1 ... I see more people choosing the shorty forty over the nifty fifty. The nifty fifty is sharp all right, but everything else in that lens is a big compromise.

[Rienzphotoz]

Interesting.  Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine.  Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you.  Sharper and more consistent?  Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.

My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).

+1

[Rienzphotoz]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.

The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty".  I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body.  I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired.  I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter.  I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF?  Really?  If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF.  The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.

Interesting.  Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine.  Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you.  Sharper and more consistent?  Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.

My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).

+1 ... I see more people choosing the shorty forty over the nifty fifty. The nifty fifty is sharp all right, but everything else in that lens is a big compromise.

+1 ... (over a period of 6 years) I had three 50 f/1.8 lenses (bought the first one, I got the second one as a free bundle with a DSLR and third one was a gift) but none of them could auto focus as fast as the 40 f/2.8 ... build quality of 40 is way better than the 50 f/1.8 

[JVLphoto]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.

The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty".  I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body.  I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired.  I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter.  I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF?  Really?  If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF.  The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.

I think you see it from the same perspective that I approached the review from.  I didn't look at it as a compliment to a lens arsenal of a pro or advanced amateur, but a reasonably priced entry level lens for someone contemplating their (likely) second lens after a kit purchase... everyone else will likely know if they want it or not I figure... or, like me, be confused by it

[Rienzphotoz]

or, like me, be confused by it

Why "confused"?

[JVLphoto]

or, like me, be confused by it

Why "confused"?

Why it was made. Though this particular forum has made it clear that it's already a beloved lens, that many were waiting for.

[Rienzphotoz]

or, like me, be confused by it

Why "confused"?

Why it was made.

To make photos of course ... but seriously I think its a neat little lens and comes in handy when one does not want to stick out like a sore thumb with the regular lenses in certain places.

Though this particular forum has made it clear that it's already a beloved lens, that many were waiting for.

I don't know about it being my "beloved lens" but it isn't just this forum, generally speaking most people seem to like its form factor and overall performance vs price ... although I don't use it a lot, I do carry it everyday in my bag as a back up ... for the price and performance, it is worth having it ... besides, its not gonna put a dent in anyone's bank balance.

[wickidwombat]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.

The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty".  I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body.  I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired.  I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter.  I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF?  Really?  If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF.  The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.

Interesting.  Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine.  Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you.  Sharper and more consistent?  Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.

My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).

I agree with dustin, the nifty fifty need to be stopped down to 2.2 or 2.5 which is only marginally faster than the 40, the 40 is built ALOT better and oof is much much better the 5 blades hurt the 50 1.8 alot
the 40mm gives comparable image quality to the 70-200 f2.8L IMO and is a great little partner for this lens

[Dittoman1]

Not sure I understand the people complaining about this review. Since when have the reviews here been anything more than personal, real-world usage? That's what's good about them. If you want the technical, $1000 worth of software and optic-testing equipment reviews, you know where to go to get that.

I thought it was a good review, and provided some real-world perspective. If I had to complain, and this isn't a complaint so much as a question, why didn't you use it for some short videos. I mean, isn't this lens primarily aimed at DSLR video use over still photo?

I would totally buy this lens over the nifty-50 based on the tighter build quality alone, not to mention the focusing system.

Does this update have to be send to canon or do it myself by putting it in CF card after unzip?? Sorry I m kinda new