Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

[AvTvM]

There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.

Funny. If that were the case, then why is it doing so well in the market?

Because it is "cheap", optically good and most of all "oh so cute".
An equally improved 50/1.4 II at 399 or a 35/2.0 at 299 would also do very well. And an improved 50/1.8 II for 199  with improved  IQ,  8 rounded aperture blades, Ring-USM, and metal mount.

Other than that: a 5D 1/2/3 shooter never looks like a P&S snapshooter, no matter what lens is attached. The body alone is too fat for that.
And it would be very difficult to take good photos holding a 5D 1/2/3 at arms length in live view. The body alone is too heavy for that.

[spinworkxroy]

The 40mm for one...is a very handy little lens to bring around as a "spare"
For example, when i went to the zoo for an outing, i only had a tele lens attached to my camera.
I didn't bring a bag or any other lenses/attachments etc..just the camera and a strap.
In instances where a tele lens is too "zoomed" where i wanted a wider view, i had the 40mm in my pocket..
It is zoo small and light, it just felt like having another phone in the pocket to it was good to have around..

In situations like this and with many others i can think of, this is what i see the 40mm pancake being great for.

[peederj]

Annnnhh well I ended up keeping it. 

It's half the size of the 50/1.4 and the corner quality at 2.8 on the 5D3 is just a hair better than the 50/1.4. But the IQ is better on the 50 center I think and I of course much prefer the focus even though that's not a great focus system either.

Maybe practicing with this focus by wire will prepare me if I'm ever on a GH2 video shoot for whatever reason. I dislike it. I shoot all-manual most of the time, I was raised on manual SLRs of the 80's, I think an SLR should feel like control, not a P&S. This makes the SLR feel like a P&S but with no zoom ability. But the focus is like zooming a cheap camcorder with toggley buttons.

Cheap and cheerful as they say. The pictures really are quite nice, on FF it's a good look, lets you squeeze in a two-shot without making people too fat like a 35. But the 50/1.4 takes a better picture at 2.8 for my money. Corners aren't critical in my world.

[PhotoCat]

just got my 40 2.8 with high expectation with color according to other reviews. Sadly the color and shadow detail is almost identical to my 50/1.8, compared with no filter on. I am keeping 50/1.8 & returning the 40 2.8.
Canon really needs to upgrade 50/1.4 due to motor stuck problem...

[briansquibb]

It was relevant to me as the 50mm was the one it was going to replace. The 50 f/1.8 has poor bokeh so the other one was the f/1.4

a 40/2.8 can in no way replace a 50/1.4. There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake. But there still is an urgent need for an improved 50/1.4 II and an improved 50/1.8 II and an improved 35/2.0. All of them need 8-9 nicely rounded aperture blades, all of them need super-spectrum coating, all of them need true Ring-USM with FTM - ultrafast and totally silent - rather than the weirdo and cheapo new STM-AF drive. All of them could also use a newly developed optical formula and glass to achieve better MTFs. 

What does Canon do? Come up with an unneeded, bleedingly expensive 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and a 40/2.8 pancake - which at least is optically good, cheap and cute looking. ALl of these are "nice to have" in Canon's large lens-lineup, but none of them had any priority at all, whereas the 50 and 35 are in urgent need of an upgrade.

That's all I am saying.

Let me say it again. My pancake was going to replace my 50 f/1.4. I dont shoot wide open with the f/1.4 because of the shallow DOF so I dont give a toss about it 'only' being f/2.8

I dont give a toss about the Canon range. I dont give a toss whether it is silent. I just reported it as I found it.

If you dont like it then dont buy it - but a lot of people will buy it as it represents a lot of bang for the buck. The argument for APS-C has been cheapness including cheap lens. Well Canon listened and have produced a cheap full frame lens - ready for the cheap FF methinks

How have you found your pancake and the 24/28 IS? You have expressed such a strong anti opinion I can only assume your experience is not very good - or were you just disappointed that you weren't getting a 50 f/1.2 II FOR 50 F/1.8 PRICE.

[Zlatko]

There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.
....
What does Canon do? Come up with an unneeded, bleedingly expensive 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and a 40/2.8 pancake - which at least is optically good, cheap and cute looking. ALl of these are "nice to have" in Canon's large lens-lineup, but none of them had any priority at all, whereas the 50 and 35 are in urgent need of an upgrade.

It sounds like you're criticizing Canon for not meeting your own urgent need right now.  I had an urgent need for a 40/2.8 pancake lens, so I am very excited about it.  I love how it gives me a super-small lens option for shooting in day time.   I love how it effectively "shrinks" my full-frame camera when traveling ... I now have much less need for a smaller camera body on trips. 

Looking at the huge assortment of 60 or so lenses in production, there are so many options that there is arguably nothing that needs an urgent upgrade.  If they aren't upgrading the lens that you personally urgently need, it is because they are upgrading (or introducing) a lens that someone else urgently needs.  And when the time comes that they do upgrade the lens that you urgently need, it will mean that they are not upgrading a lens that someone else urgently needs.  There's no way to please everybody.

[Heavyweight67]

 

Canon 40mm f2.8 STM Hands-on Review	Small | Large

Like him love him or hate him, here is his review.

I'm still not exactly sure if the 40mm is something I will buy, maybe when I have some loose change and need a new toy or maybe a stocking stuffer.

I have my 50 1.4 which is basically neglected, but a Sigma 85 is definitely on the cards..

[Kernuak]

There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.

Funny. If that were the case, then why is it doing so well in the market?

Because it is "cheap", optically good and most of all "oh so cute".
An equally improved 50/1.4 II at 399 or a 35/2.0 at 299 would also do very well. And an improved 50/1.8 II for 199  with improved  IQ,  8 rounded aperture blades, Ring-USM, and metal mount.

Other than that: a 5D 1/2/3 shooter never looks like a P&S snapshooter, no matter what lens is attached. The body alone is too fat for that.
And it would be very difficult to take good photos holding a 5D 1/2/3 at arms length in live view. The body alone is too heavy for that.

Canon, like any other successful business, try to bring to market, something that they think can fill a hole in that market. People have been asking for pancake lenses, Canon produced one, which is optically good, "cheap" and "oh so cute" and customers lapped it up. Therefore they did it right and the marketing department did their jobs. A 50mm is the sort of lens that people get, because it is "standard", so they think they ought to have one, but how many would actually replace the one they had (whichever version) if a new one came out? I bet it would be less than those buying the shorty forty.
The reality is, I doubt Canon had the 5D in mind (if in fact hey had any body in mind) when they came up with the concept. Those looking for AF in video, wouldn't be serious film makers in the main, but those wanting to shoot a bit of home movie, the shorty forty is ideal for that I imagine, if on the 650D, plus they mostly wouldn't be interested in manual focusing (the focus ring looks a bit small). Also, it would be very unobtrusive and look like an expensive P&S on the xxxD line.

[Dave T]

I just got one and like it so far. It will be my version of a "standard" until something better (than the confusing array of Cannon 50mm choices) comes along. Saw a rumor on another forum about a 42mm f/1.0 L. Now that was a cool idea. Wish that was more than a made up rumor.

Dave

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm still not sure why I would use this lens? I have a 50L and a 50 f1.8 mkI...If I wanted an f2.8 lens, I'd use my 24-70L...who cares about size and weight? A 5DIII and a 24-70L would spank this pancake for versatility any day.

[wickidwombat]

i just got mine today, got a few test shots, so far looks really nice
gotta get some more shots
I think i'm gonna use this lens a bit in studio where i find the 50 can be a bit tight
and shooting at f11 or so i think its gonna be a little weapon
gonna try it with an IR filter on tomorrow see if it hot spots or not

[ippikiokami]

Love this lens. I find it hard to take any of my other lenses out with me now since I got it.

Portability is AMAZING. The weight is great but the size is on another level. I'm able to stick my 5d III with a spare flash in bags I couldn't even think about before.

[suburbia]

I've had mine lock up on me twice now, just wont respond to focus requests from camera, not seen it happen on any other lens. Both times this has happened in dusk/evening conditions and at first I thought it might be the low light but focus still failed even if pointing at lights and high contrast areas. In both cases only a remount of the lens fixed the issue.

Looking back Im wondering if the lens got wet but the weather wasn't so bad as to make me concerned at the time.

[DianeK]

I've had mine lock up on me twice now, just wont respond to focus requests from camera, not seen it happen on any other lens. Both times this has happened in dusk/evening conditions and at first I thought it might be the low light but focus still failed even if pointing at lights and high contrast areas. In both cases only a remount of the lens fixed the issue.

Looking back Im wondering if the lens got wet but the weather wasn't so bad as to make me concerned at the time.

Ck
Check out this discussion at the POTN forums.  You are not alone.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1203463
Diane

[crasher8]

MF has been unavailable at times but AF has worked just fine.