Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.

[allanc]

would love to see an L series version

That wouldn't be technically feasible.

There's not enough room for the red stripe.

[markd61]

Is there really a Canon DSLR owner out there that is pissed because the 50mm f/1.8 & 35mm f/2 are just too large and heavy?

If you look at posts on various boards there is a lot of comment whining about size. I agree the lenses you mention are not bulky but they are not new and do not seem in any danger of being upgraded.

A key aspect of the pancake is that it adds a uniqueness that Canon knows will attract attention and sales.

History is full of interesting lenses that achieve cult status for whatever reason. In some cases it is just being different that attracts a cadre of loyal followers. The 45 GN Nikkor of the 60's was one such lens. A pancake design with the inspired feature of coupling the aperture to the focus via setting the guide number of your flash. Thus you could always have perfectly exposed flash pictures. The bonus was its shorter FL was ideal for event photography in tighter spaces.

It did not sell in great numbers in its day as the average snap shooter would not spend the money. It is now a a highly desired collectable lens.

[mb66energy]

I need a physics lesson:

Why cant they put bigger glass in it, and make it pancake size 40mm F0.5 or similar?

A 40mm 0.5 would have a diameter of 80mm and the lens thickness might be in the range of 30 or 40 mm ...

The other point is: A large lens diameter for short focal lenghs means a lot of spherical aberration. Lenses with spherical surfaces do not bend the light of each ray passing through it to one point. Now you have two options: Use aspherical surfaces or a set of other lenses to correct spherical aberration.

Another point: Correcting CAs means you need TWO lenses with different disperion functions to compensate for different focal lengths for different wavelengths (=colors).

These corrections need a lot of space for additional lenses and ... you need a retrofocus design to circumvent using space in the mirror box. Retrofocus designs can be seen as a design that "shifts virtual lenses" behind the last real element. Necessary for a 24 mm full frame lens and a lot others.

[mb66energy]

I've got a bad feeling about the price of these new STM lenses....

I sure hope this pancake comes in at about $200.   We could start a pricing pool -- unfortunately my guess would be $400.

Sure hope $200 wins the pool!

If Canon  can sell the 50mm f1.8 II at $100. The 40mm f2.8 can be sold for $100 also if the sales volume is large enough. Canon price it at $200 to make sure it can get the R &D and tooling cost back fast enough. Also canon does not expect the 40MM f2.8 will be sold as much as the 50mm f 1.8 II.

I think "hmmm" is right

• if the lens is FTM capable and
• if the rear element is aspherical
• because it has 6 lens elements (element number counts more then sheer size if compared to 1.8/50
• because miniaturization of components makes things more complicated/drives price

Why do I think of aspherical rear element? - If the color code of the lenses is according to that of the canon.jp web site, the last element IS aspherical. And that makes sens if you want a very well corrected lens.

If usability and IQ of this lens are a lot better compared to the 50mm/1.8 this one will sell well.

[FunPhotons]

Looking forward to it. On any DSLR body, such as my non gripped 5DMKII, it should make for a super light package. My 5D body doesn't weight anything, it's in all that glass.

I think pancake lenses are a brilliant solution to those needing a small and light package. This way I can go on vacation with one body, and just pick the lens based on how much weight I can carry. Lots='L' lenses, Puny=Pancake

[Rocky]

I've got a bad feeling about the price of these new STM lenses....

I sure hope this pancake comes in at about $200.   We could start a pricing pool -- unfortunately my guess would be $400.

Sure hope $200 wins the pool!

If Canon  can sell the 50mm f1.8 II at $100. The 40mm f2.8 can be sold for $100 also if the sales volume is large enough. Canon price it at $200 to make sure it can get the R &D and tooling cost back fast enough. Also canon does not expect the 40MM f2.8 will be sold as much as the 50mm f 1.8 II.

I think "hmmm" is right

• if the lens is FTM capable and
• if the rear element is aspherical
• because it has 6 lens elements (element number counts more then sheer size if compared to 1.8/50
• because miniaturization of components makes things more complicated/drives price

Why do I think of aspherical rear element? - If the color code of the lenses is according to that of the canon.jp web site, the last element IS aspherical. And that makes sens if you want a very well corrected lens.

If usability and IQ of this lens are a lot better compared to the 50mm/1.8 this one will sell well.

50mm f1.8 II is also 6 element. I know the last element of the 40mm f2.8 is a "molded" aspherical element. It should not be more expensive than a polished element. As for size of the elements, both lenses are comparable. I think the real difference of the price is from the R & D and tooling cost per lens. Obviously, the 40mm f 2.8 will have a much lower volume than the 50mm f1.8 II.

[neuroanatomist]

Looks ideal for quickly packing in a bag. Of course I would 'probably' put a different lens on for when I am specifically going out to take photos. However, there are so many of my business trips when I want to have my camera with me.  I tried having a small point and shoot...

Thanks!! This is actually the first personally-relevant point in a 40mm pancake.  I have a Lowepro S&F Utility Bag 100AW that was initially intended for a camcorder and accessories, but it exactly the right size for a gripped or 1-series body without lens - it would also fit a 1D X with this pancake lens.  That setup would fit in a pocket of the Brenthaven computer satchel that holds my 17" MacBook Pro and serves as an overnight bag for short trips. I'd be likely to bring the dSLR in that case, whereas now I'm just bringing my S100.  It's an even more attractive solution given that most of my free time on those short trips is at night, and the ISO capabilities of the 1D X with an f/2.8 lens should do fine.

I'm going to reserve judgement until reviews with IQ testing are available (which, the way things are going, will still be before my preordered 1D X is in my hands  ), but I'd the IQ is good, I'd consider this lens.

[rcha101]

I want a 35mm F2 version of this. Can't wait to see what else is in store for the STM range.

[7enderbender]

But why it has to be longer? Cant they bend light sharply enough to use big glass in a very short lens? What are physics restrictions to this? (Just curious , an article regarding this would be an interesting read)

Material properties restrict how much the light can be bent.  To make fast aperture short lenses, you'd need new glass-like materials that have a higher index of refraction and have lower chromatic abberation properties.  Diffractive optics with their gratings can bend light more than traditional optics, but the technology is not yet good enough to deliver comparable or better IQ.

Really? And why can Voigtlander do this, for example? Their Nokton 35mm F/1.4 doesn't look that much bigger. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are fast, in that same focal range and pretty small and flat - and "full frame"...

[Random Orbits]

But why it has to be longer? Cant they bend light sharply enough to use big glass in a very short lens? What are physics restrictions to this? (Just curious , an article regarding this would be an interesting read)

Material properties restrict how much the light can be bent.  To make fast aperture short lenses, you'd need new glass-like materials that have a higher index of refraction and have lower chromatic abberation properties.  Diffractive optics with their gratings can bend light more than traditional optics, but the technology is not yet good enough to deliver comparable or better IQ.

Really? And why can Voigtlander do this, for example? Their Nokton 35mm F/1.4 doesn't look that much bigger. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are fast, in that same focal range and pretty small and flat - and "full frame"...

Isn't the Nokton you cite for a range finder camera, without a mirror box?  What example can you find of a small profile lens that is f/1.4 for a full frame sensor DSLR that also has autofocus?

[wickidwombat]

i would be keen on seeing someone who gets one early do some shots with an IR filter to see if it suffers hot spotting as that would most likely be one of the main reasons i might pick one up, I kow reviews arent going to test that since its extremely specific

[Lee Jay]

Wait - a full-frame lens with a backfocus distance of 38.4mm?  Doesn't the EF spec set that at 44mm?

[Rocky]

Wait - a full-frame lens with a backfocus distance of 38.4mm?  Doesn't the EF spec set that at 44mm?

44mm is the fringe distance. The lens mount goes inside the fringe. that is why the back focus is 38.5mm to push the lens as close to the sensor as possible to do the 'Pancake".

[hmmm]

I've got a bad feeling about the price of these new STM lenses....

I sure hope this pancake comes in at about $200.   We could start a pricing pool -- unfortunately my guess would be $400.

Sure hope $200 wins the pool!

okay...okay... $200 wins the pool and I'm very glad to say: I WAS WRONG!   

I'm planning on picking up one of these myself, and kudos to Canon for not price-gouging on this lens.   And kudos to CR for some great on-target rumors!

[mb66energy]

I've got a bad feeling about the price of these new STM lenses....

I sure hope this pancake comes in at about $200.   We could start a pricing pool -- unfortunately my guess would be $400.

Sure hope $200 wins the pool!

If Canon  can sell the 50mm f1.8 II at $100. The 40mm f2.8 can be sold for $100 also if the sales volume is large enough. Canon price it at $200 to make sure it can get the R &D and tooling cost back fast enough. Also canon does not expect the 40MM f2.8 will be sold as much as the 50mm f 1.8 II.

I think "hmmm" is right

• if the lens is FTM capable and
• if the rear element is aspherical
• because it has 6 lens elements (element number counts more then sheer size if compared to 1.8/50
• because miniaturization of components makes things more complicated/drives price

Why do I think of aspherical rear element? - If the color code of the lenses is according to that of the canon.jp web site, the last element IS aspherical. And that makes sens if you want a very well corrected lens.

If usability and IQ of this lens are a lot better compared to the 50mm/1.8 this one will sell well.

50mm f1.8 II is also 6 element. I know the last element of the 40mm f2.8 is a "molded" aspherical element. It should not be more expensive than a polished element. As for size of the elements, both lenses are comparable. I think the real difference of the price is from the R & D and tooling cost per lens. Obviously, the 40mm f 2.8 will have a much lower volume than the 50mm f1.8 II.

40mm is FTM -> much higher usability for many photographers, more complicated built
rear element is aspherical -> plan 20-30EUR more production cost
6-element -> I know that 50/1.8 is 6 element, 40mm is not cheaper in production
small outline -> small systems are - often - more complicated to built

Additionally we have a rounded 7 blade diaphragm compared to the 5 blades of 50/1.8 ...
We have a metal mount compared to the plastic mount of 50/1.8 ...
We have STM (hopefully it fulfills expectations) as a silent, video capable AF (if someone wants to use it) ...

IMHO pricing of the new lens can be understood without any tooling or R&D costs ... 200 vs 125 $ is a fair difference ... if general IQ of the new lens is great.

Best Michael