40mm/2.8 looks better than both 50/1.8 and 50/1.4

[dilbert]

50/1.4


50/1.8


40/2.8

[wickidwombat]

hello mr apple meet mr orange 

now pop up the mtfs of the 50 1.4 and the 50 1.8 @ f2.8

[neuroanatomist]

hello mr apple meet mr orange 

now pop up the mtfs of the 50 1.4 and the 50 1.8 @ f2.8

You need to get out of the orchard and head to school - MTF-101 is the class you need to take. 

The 40/2.8 is better wide open (which is a relative measure). Comparing one lens wide open at f/2.8 to faster lenses stopped down to f/2.8 would, indeed, be comparing apples to oranges - that's why we also compare at f/8.  The 40/2.8 is better at f/8 (which is as close as you're going to get to an absolute measure in this case).  Therefore, the 40/2.8 delivers better sharpness based on MTF50. Granted - that says nothing about color, bokeh, flare, etc. 

[wickidwombat]

blue lines are f8 right?

yes its better but its a pretty small margin (not that there is much margin anyway)

black lines are wide open and you cant really compare them since there are 2 stops of difference
how can you compare f1.4 vs f 2.8?

I dunno but I prefer to judge based on images rather than numbers and lines

for example looking at the 35mm ziess f1.4 and the canon 35L f1.4 the ziess looks better IQ wise on paper
however once seeing images the bokeh was a deal breaker for me the samples of the L we significantly more pleasing to me.

There is far too much importance being placed on numbers and charts over actual images these days

since the 35mm is closer in focal length would it not be better to compare vs that?


still looks sharper in the corners stopped down

how about vs the 16-35 f2.8L II? shown below
this is the tele end chart

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

looks quite a bit sharper actually

BTW I'm not disputing the lens looks good from the MTF just that its not really comparing apples with apples
I might look at using it as a functional body cap too

I cant wait to see some sample images from early adopters

[neuroanatomist]

Of course you can compare the lenses wide open.  Wide open is where sharpness is at it's worst, for all lenses.  Comparing the 50/1.8 stopped down to the max aperture of a slower lens is the sort of thing that gives rise to statements like, "The $100 50/1.8 is a better lens than the $13K 800/5.6, just look at them both at f/5.6."

But certainly, as I stated, MTF50 is just one criterion that contributes to image quality. It's worth noting that the 40/2.8 also has rounded aperture blades for better bokeh.

[spinworkxroy]

I've not personally tried the 40 f2.8 at f8 yet..
SO far i've testing it at f2.8 and max f4 because i mostly use it for indoor shots so far.
And I do have the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8
And is use those VERY often.
What i've noticed with the photos i've taken is the the 40f2.8 is a tad bit sharper than the 50 and 85mm lenses BUT the colour reproduction and bokeh isn't as nice….
I would share some photos but i haven't really tested the 40mm fully yet..intend to do so this weekend during a portrait shoot though and compare it with the 50 and 85 at the same aperture in the same setting

[pdirestajr]

Oh I was hoping to see actual photos

I don't like images of charts.

[dilbert]

hello mr apple meet mr orange 

now pop up the mtfs of the 50 1.4 and the 50 1.8 @ f2.8

You need to get out of the orchard and head to school - MTF-101 is the class you need to take. 

The 40/2.8 is better wide open (which is a relative measure). Comparing one lens wide open at f/2.8 to faster lenses stopped down to f/2.8 would, indeed, be comparing apples to oranges - that's why we also compare at f/8.  The 40/2.8 is better at f/8 (which is as close as you're going to get to an absolute measure in this case).  Therefore, the 40/2.8 delivers better sharpness based on MTF50. Granted - that says nothing about color, bokeh, flare, etc.

Since when does an Internet pixel peeper care about the latter three?

[captainkanji]

Really?  Charts.  I was looking forward to see photos from each.  My 50 1.4 is awesome, so I assume, from the little lines the 40 "should" be better.  I'm not, however, gonna buy one on the basis of a bunch of dotted lines on a graph.  The proof is in the photos

[briansquibb]

I have a shoot lined up for tomorrow. Afterwards I will post some pictures from the shorty forty.

[suburbia]

Some unscientific JPEGs (default lightroom processing from RAW only, 1920p + 90% jpeg quality) on the morning I received mine:

well I ordered mine yesterday and got it today. It is a great walk around lens, the camera (5D MKIII) just feels like I am walking about with a body only. Also the focusing is quieter and seems much faster than my EF 50mm 1.4, havent tried in low light yet.

Photos shot as RAW, default Lightroom profile, no further processing


1/125 f2.8 ISO 400


1/125 f2.8 ISO 160


1/800 f6.3 ISO 100


1/125 f6.3 ISO 160

[captainkanji]

Nice pics.  If I didn't already have a 50 1.4 (or were remotely interested in video) I'd buy one for sure.

[wickidwombat]

I have a shoot lined up for tomorrow. Afterwards I will post some pictures from the shorty forty.

cool I cant wait! dont forget one of your shoe as well