Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Quick Review

[sparda79]

Please help me understand.  If you don't intend to use this lens for video, is the STM really an advantage?

Not sure, but the reviews say it's quite quiet and very accurate and, though not a speed daemon, not annoyingly slow either. All in all, it sounds like a win, especially for something this cheap and small.

Also, why would you buy this lens and pay nearly twice the price for a slower lens than the 50mm f1.8?

Because it basically turns a 5D into everything I'd ever want in a mirrorless camera, something far superior to the Leica X2 / Fuji X100.

Are the optics better?

By all accounts, the Shorty McForty is optically on a par with, if not actually superior to, the 24-70. You're basically getting good L glass in a package that's the size of a body cap and cheaper than a good circular polarizer.

The 10mm difference is important for a small sensor camera?

I don't think 64mm equivalent field of view is a very interesting perspective. I'm very excited about the field of view on full frame...42mm is the textbook normal focal length for the 135 format, and 40mm is close enough to that as makes no difference.

Significant weight
difference? Better balance with a rebel body?

Again, no clue what this'll be like on those dinky little APS-C toys. To repeat, I see the Shorty McForty mounted to my 5DIII as a Leica X2 killer. As in, stomp all over, kill crush destroy, mop the floor with Leica X2 killer.

I find the 40mm focal length of marginal value over the 35mm.

I like 35 more than I like 50, but 35 does start to feel wide. I have a very strong hunch that I am going to very much like what the 40 feels like.

But I'll find out for sure this coming Wednesday....

Cheers,

b&

You're starting to convince me that I need this lens... 

[Hector1970]

My first impressions are that it is quite a good lens. It's sharp, it has nice bokeh. It's quite solid in build. I thought actually it might be smaller but it is small I suppose. It feels heaving that the 50mm 1.8. I couldn't tell the difference between STM and USM. I see someone earlier saying that someone thought it wasn't as good as USM. I'm not sure how they could judge that. I was concerned about the STM as my camera is the 500D and can't use it's function in video and that it might not be as good as USM. I've found no issues with it at all to worry me. It focuses quickly and I haven't found it hunting (as least in reasonable light).
It's an odd size on an APS-C sensor (64mm). I think it's better suited to a Full Frame.
It will force me to move around a bit. Is it as sharp as an L lens - it probably isn't (I'm sure tests will show whether or which) - but it does seem quite sharp to me. It's certainly sharper than a 28mm 1.8 (which isn't well know for sharpness). The most common lens I use is the 24-105mm F4 L and I don't think it's much less sharp than that.
I'm glad I bought it. I think it's size is quite handy for bringing around and it makes the camera more discreet.
I have a few examples on www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan , the dog is without any adjustment if you were curious on sharpness (which also may be limited by the camera and the photographer!)

[Astro]

this lens might be good as it gets... problem is i have no need for a relativ slow 40mm lens.

i have a 50 mm f1.4 and a 35 mm f2.

i would drool a while over having a new lens and then it would lay around and be used 2-3 times a year.

[infared]

I am going to take the $200 that I could spend on this lens (as it is tempting to fill the void as I wait) and put that money toward my new, uber-expensive 24-70mm f/2.8 II...WHENEVER that may arrive on the shelves.  This summer some time, I hope!
Looks like a great fun little lens and at that price...it will sell like hot cakes (or is that pancakes?).

[Marsu42]

It feels heaving that the 50mm 1.8. I couldn't tell the difference between STM and USM. I see someone earlier saying that someone thought it wasn't as good as USM. I'm not sure how they could judge that.and the photographer!)

I don't know if you were implying that - but the Canon 50/1.8 doesn't have usm, but an extremely noisy & slow 80s-style af motor without ftm. It cannot get worse than that, so considering the crappy build quality of the 50mm only the iq is left - and here, it would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of the 40/2.8 and 50/1.8 at various apertures. Both are small and cheapish, esp. the 50/1.8 at only $100 - the lens hood is nearly as expensive as the lens :-p

[briansquibb]

The bokeh of the 50 f/1.8 is very poor

The bokeh of the 40 f/2.8 is very good

[pwp]

this lens might be good as it gets... problem is I have no need for a relativity slow 40mm lens.
i would drool a while over having a new lens and then it would lay around and be used 2-3 times a year.

Think of it as a functional $200 body cap! I might get two.

PW

[Stuart]

Still a tough decision - this might be one to rent for a trial.

[crasher8]

Just ordered mine. I'm done with older gen AF (50 1.8, 35 f/2) This will stay on my film body primarily since I use the 24-70 there quite a bit and I use the wider half of that lens more than not. Now my Elan 7 will feel like a PnS!

[michaeldorian]

this lens might be good as it gets... problem is i have no need for a relativ slow 40mm lens.

i have a 50 mm f1.4 and a 35 mm f2.

i would drool a while over having a new lens and then it would lay around and be used 2-3 times a year.

The size of the lens changes everything. At least it does for me. I think this lens is going to be the primary lens on my body. At least 80% of the time. Especially for video. So far, I'm very impressed.

Here's a quick test shot I just did.

[eyeland]

Any thoughts on how it compares to 50mm 1.4 in terms of build, IQ and bokeh?
I have come to the realization that I MUST have a walk around lens with FTM.
I am on a very tight budget atm, but if the 50mm 1.4 clearly outperforms the 40mm in any of the above areas I think it is the one for me
Only reason for me to not get the 40mm regardless, is that my budget keeps me in the aps-c range and I am afraid that 2.8 will make a big difference in terms of VF brightness for MF comparing to 1.4

If anyone has both I'd also love a comment on the focus ring gearing and action

Edit: Forgot to mention that the pricedifference seems to be alot less in Denmark where I will be buying.
40mm 2.8 : 300$
50mm 1.4 : 455$
Do the lens prices usually drop in a manner similar to what is seen on bodies?

[wockawocka]

It's exceptionally sharp.

[briansquibb]

The 40 feels better than the 50 f/1.4, certainly sounds better and af I would say is faster.

My 50 f/1.4 seems to AF then do small adjustments, the 40 just locked on

Bokeh looks good - but you would have to do a like for like compare.

[wickidwombat]

The bokeh of the 40 f/2.8 is very good

I think this is an understatement.
So far the bokeh from real world samples looks exeptional to me
easily comparible to the 70-200 f2.8L being that the 70-200 costs $2800 here and the shorty forty is $199
pretty impressive. in fact so far the IQ of the shorty forty looks to have a very similar feel to the 70-200
it might be an outstanding lens to complement the 70-200 when a little wider Angle is required

I'm really looking forward to geting hold of one of these

[Wideopen]

Its become my functional body cap for my 5dm3. I love it.