40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens

[E-Bahn]

If you've got the ~200$ to spare, I'd go for it (In fact, I did).

I've been using both the 50 1.8 and the 40 on my 6d and I've been using the 40 more and more, though I haven't done any direct comparisons.

I bought the 40 a couple weeks ago because I wanted to take photos of my new baby, which means taking lots of indoor shots of the friends and family crowding around him. I find the extra 10mm makes enough of a difference in this regard, without causing too much (if any) distortion of features.

Furthermore, I do find the construction to be better to the point of making it more enjoyable to use (focusing, more specifically). Which is why I haven't been changing lenses back to the 50mm when I'm done with indoor photo taking.

Also, and I'm channeling my father here, 40mm is a great focal range for taking "people-in-front-of-landscapes". In the minimal amount of use in this regard I've had at this focal length over the past few weeks (walks in my neighbourhood), I tend to agree.

How are you guys liking this lens compared to the 50mm 1.8 canon? I'd like to get the pancake but if it isn't as sharp or produce comparable images, I feel like it isn't worth it but that is me.

I like the pancake better (build, bokeh, AF), but 50/1.8'II seems to be a little bit sharper at f/2.8 when comparing at 100%.

 

[jcollett]

I own the original EF 50 1.8 from 1987 and the EF 40 STM. I also had purchased FoCal Pro to do AFMA along with running some focus testing. From this photographer's point of view, there is no argument. The 40 kicks the living daylights out of the 50 in resolution. The 50 may have a wider aperature, but from 2.8 out, the resolution drops off precipitously. The 40's chart is essentially flat from wide open to point of diffraction on my 5D mark ii. FoCal puts it at F/11 I think.

For other's who find criticisms for not purchasing this lens, well I find the rationalizations rather mind boggling. This lens can be purchased for less than $200. It has a simple design. I think the hardest thing people have with this is that it can best a >$2000 zoom purchase for its focal length. We want to think that the more complicated and expensive something is, the more inherently better it becomes in all aspects. This is simply not true.

I wanted to get the Sigma 35 1.4 but find it hard to justify $900 when the $149 I spent does the job so well for the vast majority of situations the focal length gets used.

My 2 cents at least.

 

[Dantana]

Has anyone compared the 40 to the non-IS 35mm 2.0? I already have the 35, so the 40 would seem redundant. But if the AF, sharpness, etc. is much better I would think about replacing the 35 with the 40. I'd be giving up a stop though.

Thoughts?

 

[Roger Jones]

I wanted to get the Sigma 35 1.4 but find it hard to justify $900 when the $149 I spent does the job so well for the vast majority of situations the focal length gets used.

My 2 cents at least.

I think its a bit of stretch to compare the sigma to the pancake. The DOF on the sigma is much more narrow and the bokah is much softer. I wish the sigma was less expensive but I think its in a different league than the photy.

 

[caMARYnon]

I am very happy with it's macro capability. With a 25mm kenko extension tube and a +3 AC Kenko close-up filter you could achieve about 0,95x - very very close to 1,00x of my 100mm macro - with excellent sharpness and details. The only bad thing is minimum working distance = about 4cm - 1,5 inches.

 

[AudioGlenn]

I love my 40!

 

[Dianoda]

I love my 40!

Same here, it's such a perfect pairing for unobtrusive general photography on my 5D. I think it and a 6D would make a wonderful compact/stealth kit. Canon really needs to make an equivalent lens for EF-S mount, the shorty 40's just a bit too much telephoto for my tastes on APS-C.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I've a 40 mm Voightlander and it's a nice lens, but I can't make 40, or 35 mm primes work for me (that's on FF or equivalent focal length). Most of my shots are 30 mm and wider, or 45 mm and longer. Anything in between is occasional only and best covered by a zoom. So no 40 mm Canon for me :

 

[edknuff]

I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.

 

[caMARYnon]

I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.

agreed, usually set contrast +1 or +2 and color sat +1 in DPP.

 

[Sporgon]

I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.

agreed, usually set contrast +1 or +2 and color sat +1 in DPP.

It's a useful lens for high contrast scenes then

 

[cliffwang]

I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.

agreed, usually set contrast +1 or +2 and color sat +1 in DPP.

It's a useful lens for high contrast scenes then

+1
It's a useful lens. I really like the pancake design. I really have a lot of fun with this lens. Hopefully Canon can make 30mm pancake lens, so I will like to buy it and use it on SL1.

 

[AudioGlenn]

I love my 40!

Same here, it's such a perfect pairing for unobtrusive general photography on my 5D. I think it and a 6D would make a wonderful compact/stealth kit. Canon really needs to make an equivalent lens for EF-S mount, the shorty 40's just a bit too much telephoto for my tastes on APS-C.

Felt the same with my 60D. I like it much more on FF