Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

[preppyak]

Starting to look like f2.8 is going to be the standard minimum for non L primes.... 

This could mean two things, Canon pushing people into buying top end primes for anything less, or alternatively realignment of the ranges to have f2.8 "cheap" primes, entry level L primes and moving the current top range primes up the price list.

Based on the 24mm and 28mm, I'd go ahead and say the former...neither are "cheap" primes or anywhere close to it. That said, if f/2.8 is the standard for their primes, they'll stop selling primes. If the 17-55 does f/2.8 and IS, there are limited reasons to get the 24mm adn 28mm primes. And if you need low-light for cheap, you'd get the 50mm f/1.8 over the 40mm f/2.8.

[preppyak]

hopefuly a mirrorless FF which accepts EF-S lenses.

You do realize that's basically impossible. EF-S has an image circle that fits a crop sensor, on a full-frame sensor, you'd end up with a vignette covering the difference between a crop and full-frame sensor.

Now, you could probably technically use some of the lenses at certain focal lengths (just like I can use my Tokina 11-16 at 16mm on full-frame), but the image quality would suffer, and you can't base an entire system around the notion of hacking together solutions.

Some examples
http://shphotography.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/5d-sigma-30mm-14/
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

[TrumpetPower!]

I really don't get it. I'm a crop shooter and this focal length seems too long for a walk around lens and is there really any benefit to something this small on the FF bodies?

30mm or so and you might have sold me, besides it isn't as if my 35mm f2 is all that big.

The textbook definition of a "normal" lens is one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the imaging area. If you remember your Pythagoras, a full-frame 24mm x 36mm sensor has a diagonal of 43.27mm, meaning this 40 gives you as close to a normal lens as you'll find. I could see mounting it to an un-gripped 5D for a street / party type of setup. Hell, it looks like it's no bigger than an extension tube!

b&

[Astro]

And I still don't know what to make of this. If it means the mirrorless will have EF mount, awesome. If not, then its just a strange lens. Too slow to be worth it over the 50mm f/1.8 (and probably more expensive)...not much cheaper than a 35mm f/2...no IS to make it like the 24 and 28mm lenses. It doesn't really fit obviously within any strategy area. Just seems like they wanted a pancake lens for the sake of having one.

yep and it looks pretty stupid on a DSLR

[AvTvM]

if its optically decent and really sub /€ 200 I may pick one up as an ultra-light "outdoors/mountaineering" lens. 

This lens demonstrates, just how small modern full-frame-capable lenses can be built. With AF. It proves, that AF does NOT make lenses bigger than MF-lenses, rather the other way round.

High time for a KILLER FF mirrorless, Canon. Stick the 5D3 sensor plus a great new hybrid FPPD & CD-AF system in a small body for a smaller price than the 5D3. After all, there are some savings by avoiding the cost for materials, manufacturing and labor-intensive high-precision-assembly of mirrorbox and prism!  :-)

[missitnoonan]

I really don't get it. I'm a crop shooter and this focal length seems too long for a walk around lens and is there really any benefit to something this small on the FF bodies?

30mm or so and you might have sold me, besides it isn't as if my 35mm f2 is all that big.

The textbook definition of a "normal" lens is one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the imaging area. If you remember your Pythagoras, a full-frame 24mm x 36mm sensor has a diagonal of 43.27mm, meaning this 40 gives you as close to a normal lens as you'll find. I could see mounting it to an un-gripped 5D for a street / party type of setup. Hell, it looks like it's no bigger than an extension tube!

b&

Totally get the focal length for FF, but is there any benefit to something this small on such a big camera?  Doesn't look like it would even extend past the hand grip!  Hey, performance being equal I guess smaller is always better, but things like the 35 f2 and 50 1.8 are already tiny and light.

[elflord]

If there's an AF/MF switch, I assume there's a motor

Yep, that's what I was thinking.

And I still don't know what to make of this. If it means the mirrorless will have EF mount, awesome. If not, then its just a strange lens. Too slow to be worth it over the 50mm f/1.8 (and probably more expensive)...not much cheaper than a 35mm f/2...no IS to make it like the 24 and 28mm lenses. It doesn't really fit obviously within any strategy area. Just seems like they wanted a pancake lens for the sake of having one.

Doesn't make sense for mirrorless to have an EF mount. They could be trying to make a smaller SLR.

[Daniel Flather]

wish it was white 

EPIC

[crasher8]

Pricing to possibly be sub 200. That's NOT even close to the 35 f/2. This will be a nice little niche lens easy to add to anyone's kit. Nothing to blow you away, just another FL which will work for some and not others, LIKE ANY LENS.

Hmmmmm 64mm. I could do that.

[AvTvM]

Doesn't make sense for mirrorless to have an EF mount. They could be trying to make a smaller SLR.

you are right, I overlooked that one ... 

[mws]

Doesn't make sense for mirrorless to have an EF mount. They could be trying to make a smaller SLR.

you are right, I overlooked that one ... 

Unless they have some how changed the mount, like you can't put a EF-S lens on a FF camera.

[pwp]

At under $200 is this going to be a nail in the coffin of the 50 f/1.8? On a Rebel size body this becomes a very compact lightweight unit. They'll sell boatloads of this lens.

PW

[hammar]

I'm already in love with this lens! I have a feeling it will be a bottleneck on the 5D3 IQ though...

On a side note: why are you all referring to the aperture as "speed/fast", in what way is a 2.8-lens faster than a 5.6-lens (the latter has a smaller maximum aperture which is not to say it is faster in any way)?

[wickidwombat]

Would a lens hood screw onto the filter then?

same as the 50mm f1.8 yeah a hood needs to screw in but i got a great one on ebay where you screw in a bayonet ring then you can use a bayonet hood on it

i'll dig up the link, here you go

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Lens-Hood-Shade-Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-8-II-USM-52mm-Thread-Adapter-Ring-ES-62-L-/160816196853?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item2571646cf5

[J]

On a side note: why are you all referring to the aperture as "speed/fast", in what way is a 2.8-lens faster than a 5.6-lens (the latter has a smaller maximum aperture which is not to say it is faster in any way)?

Larger aperture lenses deliver more light to the sensor, which means you can use a faster shutter speed.

f/5.6 is two stops slower than f/2.8. Say you're already using ISO 1600, and the f/5.6 lens can only get 1/15 shutter speed. The f/2.8 could achieve 1/60 under the same conditions, which can make all the difference sometimes...