Need some advice from owners of the 40mm and FF cameras

[ShokTHX]

I am looking for a lens to handle full length portraits and group portraits in situations I cannot fit in with a 70-200.
For the near future, I am looking at the new 40mm or the 50 1.8 (mostly because of price).

For owners of the 40:
How much distortion would the 40 have in a full length portrait? Would you compare it to closer to a 50 or a 35mm lens.
Would the 40 be capable of a 3/4 length portrait without exaggerating body features? Even so, most likely I'd be using the 70-200 for any 3/4 length portraits.

I used to have a 24-105 for these situations but after some lens changes I currently have a big hole between 20mm and 70mm. I normally used a 100 for nearly all portrait work but expect I'll soon be doing work in tighter interiors where the option of backing up may not be available.
Both my cameras are full frame so I'd really like to hear from those who use the 40 with full frame.

Thanks
James

 

[instaimage]

Any reason you're not looking at the 24-70? You say you currently have a big hole between 20mm & 70mm...

I shoot nearly all my portrait work with my 24-70 as well as group photos, very versatile... I personally am not 100% pleased with the current version and have the "new" one on pre-order but at this point it is as good as vaporware...

I have the 40mm pancake... haven't tried portraits specifically with it because I like to be a touch further away, compress the background a bit more and also give people a bit more "personal" space... I've done some group work with the 40 and was pleased with the results...

I'm shooting on two 1DX's and a 5D3... been happy with the results of the 24-70 on all three bodies as well as on my former 7Ds...

 

[ShokTHX]

Price is why I am not looking at the 24-70 right now and why I am choosing between the 40 and 50 1.8 at the moment. ;D Unless you know someone close to the Milwaukee area that would trade one for Photogenic Aurora. Right now, I can justify 100-200 for a lens. More than that is going to have to wait a bit.
It sounds like the 40 might work if you've been pleased using it for groups (one of the purposes I'd want it for).
I've done portraits for nearly 20 years and 90% of my work was with 100mm primes. There is no doubt that I'll eventually get a 24-70 once I've proven that I'll be able to justify the cost with an income from it. In the meantime, I need something inexpensive to fill that gap a bit.

James

 

[instaimage]

Hey James,
If you're used to primes to shoot groups and have the flexibility of moving your feet for zoom then I think you'd be good with the 40mm (no joke about the price being right). I do not have that luxury. When I did shoot with the 40 for a group it was specifically because that little guy fits in my pocket and I can slap it on quickly for a "group" shot. The 24-70 doesn't fit in the pocket so easily...

MOST of the time when I'm shooting my 24-70 is because I NEED that flexibility because I cannot move very far but need to be able to get tight on a five year old baseball player but wide enough for a group of pre-teens for a buddy shot... I don't have much room to be able to move so having that flexibility to zoom saves me a lot of time... I shoot 400-600 kids in one day that flexibility saves me A LOT of time.