Gear Talk > Lenses

Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake


Canon Rumors:
Canon Rumor’s Review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

Justin has completed our review of Canon’s little 40 f/2.8 STM pancake lens.
People ask me all the time if it’s worth $200, and I say it is… even just for the fun of it. I especially like it on the EOS 6D just to reduce even more weight from a walkaround kit. Justin also liked the lens, though he doesn’t think he’ll be taking it to too many professional gigs.
Justin’s Conclusion

“Will a pro shooter get something out of this lens that they don’t on any of their other pieces of kit? Meh, probably not. But that’s missing the point, this lens isn’t FOR them. It’s for people who want a light kit, it’s for people who don’t have over a thousand dollars for a zoom lens. It’s for people who who just want to get started or to explore image making with something cheap, or help grow the small kit they already have. It’s for people who, already having pretty much everything, just need something new and unobtrusive to take with them, to give them a slightly different view and inspire some new work.”

Read the entire review | Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM $199

Nice review ...But the 40mm is going to find a place in my kit anyway because it gives me a reasonably fast prime while occupying virtually zero space.

I had this lens since it came out. To be honest, I didn't really need it, just thought it was intriguing.  Haven't used it much either, but the few times I did, I was very happy with it.  Once was when I had to take pictures of an old world war 2 airplane cockpit, specifically its instrumentation.  This lens worked great, it was nice not to have to manoeuver inside the tiny cockpit with a huge lens, and the resulting pictures were tack sharp. Just what I needed.  Basically I see it as a back up lens. Wherever I go, vacation, shooting something important, this lens can basically be in a side pocket, and if the primary lens failed, this would be a nice backup.

The review asks why we would buy this over the faster 50 1.8. For me it was because I don't love the hexagonal bokeh balls on the 50. The 40 2.8 has more aperture blades, and better looking blur to my eyes. Price was close enough to be a non-factor in my decision.


[0] Message Index

Go to full version