Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

[tobiasg@gmail.com]

  The 50 1.4 looked to be the way to go, but this at a cheaper price and similar build might be better for me.  The tiny size means I'd be able to put a body with lens into my work bag or even the handle bar bag on my bicycle. 

I have had the 40mm now for about 3 days, really fun little lens but at 2.8 the 50 f/1.4 beats it pretty solidly, 50 f/1.4 also has nicer contrast.  That all said I think I will keep it around, it makes my 5DM3 nicely portable and the quality certainly isn't bad, just doesn't hold up that well against the 50 f/1.4 which isn't THAT much bigger but is almost 2x the price. 

I have a few photos of it on my camera http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2012/06/40mm-stm-quick-review/ and I hope to rent a T4i in the next week or so and test the full time AF with STM - for those folks who are buying the T4i I think it is a no-brainer.

[briansquibb]

  The 50 1.4 looked to be the way to go, but this at a cheaper price and similar build might be better for me.  The tiny size means I'd be able to put a body with lens into my work bag or even the handle bar bag on my bicycle. 

I have had the 40mm now for about 3 days, really fun little lens but at 2.8 the 50 f/1.4 beats it pretty solidly, 50 f/1.4 also has nicer contrast.  That all said I think I will keep it around, it makes my 5DM3 nicely portable and the quality certainly isn't bad, just doesn't hold up that well against the 50 f/1.4 which isn't THAT much bigger but is almost 2x the price. 

Lab tests are showing that the 40 is at least as good as the 50 f/1.4 - especially at f/4 and f/5.6 which is where the lens will be used most.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/752-canon_40_28_ff

The one thing is certain is that the 50 f/1.8 has been eclipsed.

A great little lens for the crop camera

[DianeK]

I seem to have gotten a bad copy.  Got it yesterday and was singularly unimpressed with sharpness so decided today to analyze with FoCal.  Turns out it is backfocusing but inconsistently so it needs different AFMA's depending on shooting distance.  Also, FoCal Pro will analyze for best aperature for sharpness.  Turns out this one is best at f/11 if I am more than 6 ft from my subject, and f/4.5 if closer than 6 feet.  It was not sharp wide open.  So back to the store goes this one.
Diane

[darrellrhodesmiller]

i've only taken a total of 10 shots with mine, but so far i'm very happy with it. it is okay at 2.8 but by f4 gets very sharp. focus is tedious at 1ft from subject.. but thats just the nature of being that close. over all i'm happy with it. def faster and quieter than the 50mm f1.8. my 50mm f1.4 is in the shop (for the 4th time) for repairs. the 85mm f1.8 seems to focus faster, but its 2x the price. i think for the money its a great deal

[nubu]

Maybe I missed something but when using it on the new 5d III with the newest firmware 1.1.3. but also in the newest dpp 3.11.31 there is no lens data available in order to correct vigneting and the rest. Hope that this is updated soon! (Aside this I love this lens!)

[Zlatko]

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.

Canon makes an incredible assortment of lenses in an extremely wide price range.  Many of them are fully competitive and innovative.  And yet people still find something to complain about.  Of course there are some lenses that still need updating. With such a vast range of lenses, there always will be some that are becoming outdated.  Eventually they'll get around to updating lenses like the 50/1.4 and 35/2, but they'll do it on their own schedule.  Remember how long it took Nikon to update the 85/1.4, or how they were about 15 years behind Canon in introducing a 24/1.4.

This new 40/2.8 is turning out to be a wonderful lens.  Canon should get a lot of credit for making something that is both good and cheap ... a rare combination.  40mm is actually closer to a standard lens for full-frame than either 35 or 50mm.  It feels "just right" in a number of ways.  For those who don't care for f/2.8 prime lenses, Canon makes a great selection f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses.  I'm excited to have such a small lens as the 40/2.8.

The other thing about asking for "fully competitive, bleeding edge" products is that they are very costly, and whenever they are introduced, people complain about the high cost.  The 40/2.8 is a great example of a lens that is useful, nice to have, affordable, high quality, and defiantly not bleeding edge.  The beauty of such a large system is that there is something for almost everybody and for almost every budget.

[Quasimodo]

I just got mine today!:) Heavier than I thought (it said 170gr. but felt heavier). Just gotten a few shots with it so far, but I like what I see. When I put it on my camera it made me think of the classic Bill Burnbach ad from 1964 when they introduced the original VW beetle in the states "It makes your house look bigger"






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canon 5D II w/grip, 17mm F4.0L TS, 16-35 F2.8L II, 50 F1.4, 70-200 F2.8L II, 24-105 F4.0L, 100 F2.8L HIS, 135 F2.0L, Sigma 85 F1.4, Tokina 17 F3.5, and now: 40 F2.8 STM.
Canon 430 EX II, 580 EX II, 600 EX RT

[AvTvM]

I do agree with you, that the Canon 40 pancake delivers very nicely on price/value. I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes. Had Canon built it the size of a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 ... and we might have gotten an equally good and reasonably priced  40/1.8. 

The other thing about asking for "fully competitive, bleeding edge" products is that they are very costly, and whenever they are introduced, people complain about the high cost. 

Bleeding edge? Some examples for me are
* Nikon D800. Way better than the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3x at 40% of the price. Better than the 5D3 but $/€ 500 less. I have not heard Nikonians complain about the D800 price.
* Nikon AF-S 35/1.8. Excellent image quality. Small price.
* Nikon AF-S 85/1.8  bleeding edge image quality. Very affordable.
* Nikon 14-24 bleeding edge performance. Reasonable cost ... similar to the inferior Canon 16-35 II.

Canon? Bleeding edge? Yes some: superteles, TS/E, 70-200/2.8, possibly the 24-70 II ...  definitely all bleeding expensive. Wide angle lenses? Not one.

[peederj]

I ended up ordering one after reading the test reports because I felt it would be nice and light and just wide enough for steadicam shots. I usually work steadicam very wide (because wider is inherently steadier) with 10-22 on a Rebel but I would like a 5d3 option and I need it to be as light as possible. Should be here todayish.

[crasher8]

Sharper than I expected and yes I like it on both my FF and crop bodies. Lots of shots will be taken this weekend.

[Razor2012]

I do agree with you, that the Canon 40 pancake delivers very nicely on price/value. I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes. Had Canon built it the size of a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 ... and we might have gotten an equally good and reasonably priced  40/1.8. 

The other thing about asking for "fully competitive, bleeding edge" products is that they are very costly, and whenever they are introduced, people complain about the high cost. 

Bleeding edge? Some examples for me are
* Nikon D800. Way better than the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3x at 40% of the price. Better than the 5D3 but $/€ 500 less. I have not heard Nikonians complain about the D800 price.
* Nikon AF-S 35/1.8. Excellent image quality. Small price.
* Nikon AF-S 85/1.8  bleeding edge image quality. Very affordable.
* Nikon 14-24 bleeding edge performance. Reasonable cost ... similar to the inferior Canon 16-35 II.

Canon? Bleeding edge? Yes some: superteles, TS/E, 70-200/2.8, possibly the 24-70 II ...  definitely all bleeding expensive. Wide angle lenses? Not one.

Really, do you think any D800 owners would complain?  Nikon should of had the price @$500 more.  There probably wouldn't be any complaining even if the 800 was $500 more than the 5DIII.

[Zlatko]

I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes.
....
Bleeding edge? Some examples for me are
* Nikon D800. Way better than the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3x at 40% of the price. Better than the 5D3 but $/€ 500 less. I have not heard Nikonians complain about the D800 price.
* Nikon AF-S 35/1.8. Excellent image quality. Small price.
* Nikon AF-S 85/1.8  bleeding edge image quality. Very affordable.
* Nikon 14-24 bleeding edge performance. Reasonable cost ... similar to the inferior Canon 16-35 II.

Canon? Bleeding edge? Yes some: superteles, TS/E, 70-200/2.8, possibly the 24-70 II ...  definitely all bleeding expensive. Wide angle lenses? Not one.

The reason for building as a pancake is obvious ... to have a pancake.  That means:  it's really small.  Smallness by itself is a great value.  It's small in the bag, small in the hand, small in use.  I love small lenses (when I don't need a fast aperture, that is).  Yes, I would love a 40/1.8 too, but you can't have a full frame f/1.8 lens that is this small. 

For my purposes, the 5D3 is much better than the D800 and well worth the extra cost.  I grant that for others, the D800 will be better.  But I really don't need Canon to build cameras to match specific Nikon models.

The Nikon 35/1.8 and 14-24 don't have exact Canon equivalents ... yet.  Perhaps they will one day; there's a rumor of a Canon 14-24 patent anyway.  Nikon's 35/1.8 is excellent, but not full frame.  Their 14-24 is excellent too, but not a lens I would find useful (or want to buy for $2K).  The new 40/2.8 is actually much more useful for me, so I'm thrilled about it.

The point is, manufacturers don't follow the same lens roadmap.  They each have different priorities at different times.  That's to be expected.  Remember how many years it took Nikon to introduce a 24/1.4 and a 35/1.4, or to build an updated 85/1.4 ... years.  After Nikon cancelled their 28/1.4, years went by without a fast Nikon wide prime.  I think the Canon 24/1.4 II is exquisitely good, and the 35/1.4 has been a workhorse for me for years, so I'm very happy with the fast Canon wides.

I think the bottom line is that whatever they build ... someone will complain.  I mean any lens you can think of ... someone will complain that they didn't build another lens instead.  Photographers have different needs at different times and, not surprisingly, no manufacturer's product release schedules will exactly match our personal needs.

[Kernuak]

* Nikon D800. Way better than the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3x at 40% of the price. Better than the 5D3 but $/€ 500 less. I have not heard Nikonians complain about the D800 price.

Better is very subjective, it's only better if it does what you want it to do and if you need the features where it is "better". There are many factors involved in purchasing photography equipment, many more when it comes to shot selection and the actual act of photographing. Whatever gear you have, you are making a compromise somewhere, it's a case of knowing whether that compromise is going to have a detrimental effect on what you want to achieve.

[AvTvM]

I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes.
....

The reason for building as a pancake is obvious ... to have a pancake.  That means:  it's really small.  Smallness by itself is a great value.  It's small in the bag, small in the hand, small in use. 
...

You are (mainly) using Canon FF DSLRs ... right? Does it really make a practical difference whether a lens is as compact and light as a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 or another 12mm shorter ... as the pancake 40? Sorry, but I just fail to that as a real advantage.

NOW, if the shorty 40 were not an EF lens, but an FF lens for a great Canon FF mirrorless system camera with the same price/value ratio :-)  ... THAT would make a whole lotta sense. Actually it would be something I'd consider "truly bleeding edge" in 2012. :-)

[briansquibb]

I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes.
....

The reason for building as a pancake is obvious ... to have a pancake.  That means:  it's really small.  Smallness by itself is a great value.  It's small in the bag, small in the hand, small in use. 
...

You are (mainly) using Canon FF DSLRs ... right? Does it really make a practical difference whether a lens is as compact and light as a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 or another 12mm shorter ... as the pancake 40? Sorry, but I just fail to that as a real advantage.

NOW, if the shorty 40 were not an EF lens, but an FF lens for a great Canon FF mirrorless system camera with the same price/value ratio :-)  ... THAT would make a whole lotta sense. Actually it would be something I'd consider "truly bleeding edge" in 2012. :-)

For street photos a small inocuous lens is easier to use than a large white on as it makes you more 'invisible' So  a shorty forty is good for street work. A 40 on ff is nearly wa, a 40 on a 1.6 is a standard lens. As for bleeding edge - well I think old and trusted works well too especially for not looking the rich tourist.