Some of you people really need to look at this lens as a whole and stop focusing on the fact that it's "only f/2.8." Sure, the 50 1.8 II is a whole 1 1/3 stop faster. Awesome. But how practical is it really to be shooting with such a shallow DoF all the time? My one and only lens is a 50mm 1.4, and I almost never shoot below f/2, not because the image quality is bad, but because I have a hard time nailing focus in a pleasing way. At any rate, when I'm shooting portraits of a single person, I'm almost always at f/2.8. If this lens manages to get good image quality wide open, it will be great. I see myself using it as a walkaround lens, meaning that I will be outside most of the time and will probably never drop below f/4 without a good reason.
Also, when people quote prices on the 50mm 1.8 II, I feel like they're being awfully loose with their figures. In the past three years I've never once seen this lens at $100 on Amazon. It's always been around $120 - $130. A roughly $75 difference between it an the 40mm 2.8 is perfectly justified by a few things: STM, FTM, rounded aperture blades, a metal mount (the 50 1.8 II is plastic), and what appears on the surface to be higher quality plastic (it's got that rough finish instead of the smooth finish of the 50mm 1.8 II).
I'd really love to see a successor to the 20mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8. I'm holding off on upgrading my camera until I see what Canon does with these lenses. If they disappoint (which I'm starting to think they will), then I'll just go to Nikon.