40mm Pancake Killed the 50mm??

[rhysb123]

Hmmmm.

I might be selling the 50mm soon! I need to sleep on it


Thank you everyone

Rhys.

PS - Any last input before I hit eBay?!?

[Phenix205]

I will hold on to both until they break. And if there is Mark II 50 1.4, I will get one for sure. It's more about the bokeh to have the 1.4.

[ecka]

There was a time when I was looking for a nice 50 prime for my 7D, but I didn't buy the Canon 50/1.4 because I knew that it is too soft at 1.4 so wouldn't use it wide open anyway. I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body. However, to make a fast prime really shine, you need a FF camera. Some say that Canon 50/1.4 is pretty decent wide open on a FF camera.

Reasons why I bought my 40mm:
[nice optics and compact design]
[smooth and silent focus ring]
[good price and it fits FF]
[I use a flash for low light, not a wide aperture lens]
[FF DoF seems to be much thinner than APS-C, so f/2.8 is fine]
[when I want a shallow DoF I reach for something like 85/1.8 anyway...]
[it's a nice high-tech EOS body cap , now I can take my camera everywhere (in a small case) and not look like a tourist ]

[syder]

I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body.

On a crop body you use the sweet spot of a FF lens, so it's far more likely to be sharp at the borders... The sigma 50/f1.4 is known as sharp in the centre and soft at the border...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1

[kdsand]

The pleasant surprise for me is how the 40 starts off crisp & clean at 2.8 - there haven't been many lens copies that I have run across that are as sharp wide open or even stopped down to 2.8 or even 4.0.

I also love the stealth factor in crowds (street photography), people just don't seem to care when i point the 40 at them. 

[ecka]

I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body.

On a crop body you use the sweet spot of a FF lens, so it's far more likely to be sharp at the borders... The sigma 50/f1.4 is known as sharp in the centre and soft at the border...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1

You are right about the sweet spot. However, there is a big difference in FF vs Crop sharpness. APS-C is using 60% less glass surface, 60% less light for similar amount of pixels and therefore it produces softer images. It's like if you cut the top of a pyramid, you still get a pyramid, only smaller. So, sometimes FF corners can be as sharp as the center of an APS-C image. While the APS-C image isn't sharp from corner to corner just because it uses the sweet spot, it's the same "pyramid", only softer. FF sensor gets a lot less light in the corners due to stronger vignetting and this may be affecting the sharpness as well. For me, corner sharpness at f/1.4 is not that important, because most of the time corners are out of focus.

[wickidwombat]

i got the new sigma 50 f1.4 (same build as the wicked 85) and it is awesome, I love the 40mm but the sigma 50 is sharp at 1.4 and like the 85 you will cut yourself at f2 if not carefull also the AF on the sigma 50 is super quick and increadably accurate

[RLPhoto]

Nope. I will always prefer a fast 50mm but the 40mm is a nice body cap.

[bdunbar79]

Nope. I will always prefer a fast 50mm but the 40mm is a nice body cap.

Nobody will ever take my 50L, 50 f/1.4, and nifty fifty away from me 

[woodywup]

  I got 40mmf/2.8 last week, since then it stick on my 5DmkII never come down.
It's so handy and can stay in my laptop bag as well.
I'm consider same thing to get 135L. good luck

[dshipley]

Hi,

I've had my 40mm f2.8 STM Pancake for a few weeks now. It's barely left my camera. I love it.

I'm seriously wondering if I'll ever use my 50mm f1.4 again - ?

OK, the 50mm is faster but I reckon the IQ from the 40mm is better. Plus, there's something about the 40mm that just 'works' for me.

Basically I wondering what other 40mm users think?

(I'm also thinking about selling my 50mm to fund the 135mm L, so I need a bit of convincing please!).

Any thoughts?

Cheers

Rhys

Since you have the 40 2.8 I'd personally suggest selling the 50 to fund the 135L. The 135L is an amazing lens and after using a 40 last night the 40 seems like a great mid range option until Canon updates their 50s.

[rhysb123]

@dshipley

That's what I'm currently thinking too!

:-)

Rhys

[smithy]

OK, the 50mm is faster but I reckon the IQ from the 40mm is better. Plus, there's something about the 40mm that just 'works' for me.

If you find 40mm works for you and appreciate 50mm's 1.4 aperture, there is one lens suits you the best:
The 35L

I've been in your position but 40mm wasn't really availably. I had 50 1.4 and 35 f2, I love both of them, the speed and image quality of 50 and the angle of 35, so after some mental struggle I sold the 35 f2 and got a 35L, that's the best decision regards to lens I've ever made.

That 35mm L is an epic lens, from what I've seen or heard.  It's just a shame it's ten times the price of the 40mm...

[ecka]

OK, the 50mm is faster but I reckon the IQ from the 40mm is better. Plus, there's something about the 40mm that just 'works' for me.

If you find 40mm works for you and appreciate 50mm's 1.4 aperture, there is one lens suits you the best:
The 35L

I've been in your position but 40mm wasn't really availably. I had 50 1.4 and 35 f2, I love both of them, the speed and image quality of 50 and the angle of 35, so after some mental struggle I sold the 35 f2 and got a 35L, that's the best decision regards to lens I've ever made.

That 35mm L is an epic lens, from what I've seen or heard.  It's just a shame it's ten times the price of the 40mm...

Not 10 times the price, only 7

[smithy]

OK, the 50mm is faster but I reckon the IQ from the 40mm is better. Plus, there's something about the 40mm that just 'works' for me.

If you find 40mm works for you and appreciate 50mm's 1.4 aperture, there is one lens suits you the best:
The 35L

I've been in your position but 40mm wasn't really availably. I had 50 1.4 and 35 f2, I love both of them, the speed and image quality of 50 and the angle of 35, so after some mental struggle I sold the 35 f2 and got a 35L, that's the best decision regards to lens I've ever made.

That 35mm L is an epic lens, from what I've seen or heard.  It's just a shame it's ten times the price of the 40mm...

Not 10 times the price, only 7

In New Zealand, where I'm from (and I assume BozillaNZ is also from), the 35mm lens is 9.2x the price of the 40mm. $2585 vs $280.