Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

[BXL]

When did f2.8 become slow?

When you could get f/2.8 zooms.

Most zooms never have the image quality of a prime. There a many situations, where I would trade the flexibility of a zoom, like the 17-50/55mm or the 24-70mm, for the image quality of a prime. A prime that is sharp open is better than a zoom, where you have to stop down a stop or two to get the desired image quality.

[Inwardlens]

I don't like small lenses - they give you no place to hold the camera.  I like holding my camera with my left hand under the lens.  My 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 were too small.  My 35/1.4L is borderline but okay.

Now this is a real reason to dislike this lens.

I do still think that for the price this would be a nice lens to throw into the camera bag as a backup in case something catastrophic happens in during a job. If Canon does actually announce a mirrorless body, this lens may pair well.

[pulsiv]

I have no doubts, this thingy will sell like bread... Its cheap... and its focal length is rather unusual for a canon lens. thats what will encourage most people to buy it. there is no real reason (exept the obvious one: size), to buy this one... since there is a 35 f2 and a 50 1.8 ... but people will buy that new toy... simply because it is the new toy... and because its so cheap, they will think it won't hurt to try it...

it won't be a great lens... but it is in fact a great idea by canon. not meeting demands, but creating them.

[preppyak]

As far as this lens goes, it is a very smart move by Canon in that it allows DSLR owners to carry a much more compact kit on their walking about forays, it affords newbies low cost entree into the land of the oft vaunted prime lens, and gives Canon breathing room while they finish up their mirrorless offering.

Comparing this, with theoretical dimensions, to the 35mm f/2, at most it will save a few oz's and about a 3/4" in lens length. The 35 f/2 is 1.7" long and weighs 7oz, the 50 f/1.8 is 1.5" long and weights 4.5oz, and the 28mm f/2,8 is in between those at 1.6" and 6oz. So Canon already has 3 lenses around that focal length that are light and small. And one that gathers an extra stop of light at a cheaper price.

Always good to have options, but, it's not like this pancake is solving a problem Canon had. A DSLR in general is not "pocketable" like a mirrorless with pancake could be; and no lens will make it that way. And few, if any, of Canon's cheap primes way more than 1/2lb, so weight was never an issue either. Not for a 2+lb DSLR at least

[William Sommerwerck]

Pentax made the first pancake lens, I think. Olympus had a 40/2, which I bought for my OM-4T. I tried putting camera-cum-lens in the inner pocket of a suit jacket, but it was a bit too thick to fit.

Pancake lenses "make sense" only on small camera bodies. Ergo, Canon must be planning a compact, mirrorless camera. I agree that f/2.8 is "skimpy", especially when you're trying to reduce the depth of field.

[dswatson83]

i still cant see the point of all these f2.8 primes coming out

Seriously. I don't get what Canon is doing with the lenses. We have had multiple lens announcements this year and all of them have been disappointing for multiple reasons. The 35mm f/2 is already very small and light. I would have definitely preferred that they just improve that...maybe make it an f/1.8. I have yet EVER to hear someone with a DSLR complain that the 35mm f/2 was too big/heavy. You would think in 22 years (the 35 f/2 came out in 1990!!!) they could have just improved the 35 f/2 and made it sharper, with faster focusing, and maybe a pinch smaller though I doubt anyone cares about that. Who the crap is approving these Canon lens choices.

[mb66energy]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

Can you explain how the camera in your 'artist's' impression offer any advantages over a DSLR? It looks like a Canon version of the Pentax K-01, a camera that seems to spectacularly miss the whole point of mirrorless cameras by having all their deficiencies (poor AF, no viewfinder) without their biggest advantage -size:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,34
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,326
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,99

[Note: I think that the Canon 'Rebels' could be slimmed down in size quite a bit, which is why I included a link to the Sony A37]

Once you've made a camera that's too big to easily fit in a pocket, you might as well go the whole hog and give it a mirror for phase detect AF and a decent viewfinder.

Yes, I can ... my rough sketch depicts a camera which can be stowed into a photo back pack or bag in some lens compartment. That is not possible with a 40D and I think it might be a problem with a 6xxD.

The missing mirror box helps to to implement a ring control around the lens base.

Removing the mirror box means space for electronics/sensor heat spreaders and gives room for a large capacity battery like the one for the 5D ii+ or 7D. This helps for video applications where battery capacity is essential.

Best - Michael

[markd61]

.

Comparing this, with theoretical dimensions, to the 35mm f/2, at most it will save a few oz's and about a 3/4" in lens length.
[/quote]

It is a significant difference in percentage terms. Whether it makes a difference in the handling is a subjective decision. I still believe they have already achieved their aims of stirring up interest in pancakes and this discussion has already opened many to the possible advantages of a small, medium speed, modern design, prime lens.
I believe they will sell a ton and if its performance is notable it may become an iconic member of the lineup.

 

[Rocky]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

Can you explain how the camera in your 'artist's' impression offer any advantages over a DSLR? It looks like a Canon version of the Pentax K-01, a camera that seems to spectacularly miss the whole point of mirrorless cameras by having all their deficiencies (poor AF, no viewfinder) without their biggest advantage -size:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,34
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,326
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,99

[Note: I think that the Canon 'Rebels' could be slimmed down in size quite a bit, which is why I included a link to the Sony A37]

Once you've made a camera that's too big to easily fit in a pocket, you might as well go the whole hog and give it a mirror for phase detect AF and a decent viewfinder.

Yes, I can ... my rough sketch depicts a camera which can be stowed into a photo back pack or bag in some lens compartment. That is not possible with a 40D and I think it might be a problem with a 6xxD.

The missing mirror box helps to to implement a ring control around the lens base.

Removing the mirror box means space for electronics/sensor heat spreaders and gives room for a large capacity battery like the one for the 5D ii+ or 7D. This helps for video applications where battery capacity is essential.

Best - Michael

Your sketch shows the mirror box sticks out even more than the handle Which is not the case for ALL Canon DSLR.  All you have done is just remove the penta prism in the expense of  a good eye level view finder and fast AF that we are enjoying now on the DSLR.  I can fit 2 DSLR bodies (40D and 20D)and 3 lenses in a Nova 4 bag. 

[mb66energy]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

Can you explain how the camera in your 'artist's' impression offer any advantages over a DSLR? It looks like a Canon version of the Pentax K-01, a camera that seems to spectacularly miss the whole point of mirrorless cameras by having all their deficiencies (poor AF, no viewfinder) without their biggest advantage -size:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,34
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,326
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,99

[Note: I think that the Canon 'Rebels' could be slimmed down in size quite a bit, which is why I included a link to the Sony A37]

Once you've made a camera that's too big to easily fit in a pocket, you might as well go the whole hog and give it a mirror for phase detect AF and a decent viewfinder.

Yes, I can ... my rough sketch depicts a camera which can be stowed into a photo back pack or bag in some lens compartment. That is not possible with a 40D and I think it might be a problem with a 6xxD.

The missing mirror box helps to to implement a ring control around the lens base.

Removing the mirror box means space for electronics/sensor heat spreaders and gives room for a large capacity battery like the one for the 5D ii+ or 7D. This helps for video applications where battery capacity is essential.

Best - Michael

Your sketch shows the mirror box sticks out even more than the handle Which is not the case for ALL Canon DSLR.  All you have done is just remove the penta prism in the expense of  a good eye level view finder and fast AF that we are enjoying now on the DSLR.  I can fit 2 DSLR bodies (40D and 20D)and 3 lenses in a Nova 4 bag.

It is meant as a rough sketch (perhaps my last one if it disturbs so much) - and thanks for the hint: The camera can be even smaller.

I cannot put 2 bodies (40D with 400mm and 100mm macro)  into a mini trekker with lenses attached and access both cameras without hassles. Additionally I was speaking about a tertiary body.

Besides that: Perhaps I am satisfied with a TFT and don't need an eye level view finder for each camera ... please respect my dreams and my potential applications of such a camera ...  - Michael

[Axilrod]

Why is everyone complaining about this lens?  It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap.  When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either.  So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it?   

It's obviously an entry-level lens, and it's $200 for crying out loud, what do you expect?  And just because it's an odd focal length to you doesn't mean that others won't find it useful, a good photographer can produce good images with any focal length.

[mb66energy]

Why is everyone complaining about this lens?  It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap.  When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either.  So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it?   

It's obviously an entry-level lens, and it's $200 for crying out loud, what do you expect?  And just because it's an odd focal length to you doesn't mean that others won't find it useful, a good photographer can produce good images with any focal length.

Thanks for your lines - some participants of this forum do not understand (IMHO) that many companies produce many tools for the vast crowd of photographers.

Besides: 40mm is not too odd - it is THE standard focal length for FF!

[AvTvM]

Why is everyone complaining about this lens?  It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap.  When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either.  So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it?   

It's obviously an entry-level lens, and it's $200 for crying out loud, what do you expect?  And just because it's an odd focal length to you doesn't mean that others won't find it useful, a good photographer can produce good images with any focal length.

Thanks for your lines - some participants of this forum do not understand (IMHO) that many companies produce many tools for the vast crowd of photographers.

Nobody NEEDS a 40mm FF EF lens as a pancake. 

Many of us are mad at Canon, because they are WASTING research & manufacturing capacity on  "nice to have" products rather than on delivering the essentials: "fully competitive, bleeding edge" cameras and lenses and true INNOVATION.  A FF pancake would make a lot of sense  with a killer FF-mirrorless Canon camera as compact as a mMinolta CLE. THAT would be innovative and welcome. An EF 40mm -f/2.8 pancake is ... YAWN.

And if Canon's geriatric management squelches any true innovation, than at least develop any of the following ASAP:
* 50/1.4 Mk. II - with improved optical performance matching if not surpassing the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 and Sigma ... and most importantly with Hi-grade RING  USM AF
* 35/2 Mk. II - with massively  improved optical performance and Ring-USM AF
* 28/1.8 Mk. II - with massively improved optical performance
* 24-70 Mk. III with f*cking 4-EV IS
And all of us want lens shades included with every Canon lens, not only with L's.
 

[crasher8]

Canon, making products no one wants but everyone buys. lol.

[pdirestajr]

We already know it is cheap, compact, has a metal mount, updated focusing motor.... and if it happens to have great optics & nice and sharp at f/2.8... what is the problem?

I'm always looking for an excuse to buy a new lens to play around with, and at this price, it's play.