40mm Pancake Killed the 50mm??

[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. ;D

 

[bdunbar79]

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

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.

 

[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

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.

Well, at least those are not euros

 

[wickidwombat]

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.

what!? thats retarded

give these guys a call I am sure they would probably ship accross the pond
http://www.leedervillecameras.com.au/CatalogueRetrieve.aspx?ProductID=2946434&A=SearchResult&SearchID=4967087&ObjectID=2946434&ObjectType=27

their 40mm is $199 too

 

[briansquibb]

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 ]

Hmmm, it's funny seeing a lot of people mentioning that 'if I want shallow DoF I go for the longer lens'

That's partly true. For a long lens to work it's magic your background has to be very far away. For confined space where camera/subject/background are not in big distance, a long lens won't achieve any more background blur than a wide angle / wide aperture lens.

And, background blur is not exactly same as shallow DoF, you can have deep DoF while having more background blur by manipulating subject/background distance, aperture and focal length. but you might already knew that.

So the point is, aperture and focal lens are different things, you can't substitute one for the other, and wide angle fast lens is wide angle fast lens and will not be replaced by anything else.

+1

This is why there is a 50macro, 100 macro and a 180 macro. They take different perspectives of the same objects

 

[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 ]

Hmmm, it's funny seeing a lot of people mentioning that 'if I want shallow DoF I go for the longer lens'

That's partly true. For a long lens to work it's magic your background has to be very far away. For confined space where camera/subject/background are not in big distance, a long lens won't achieve any more background blur than a wide angle / wide aperture lens.

And, background blur is not exactly same as shallow DoF, you can have deep DoF while having more background blur by manipulating subject/background distance, aperture and focal length. but you might already knew that.

So the point is, aperture and focal lens are different things, you can't substitute one for the other, and wide angle fast lens is wide angle fast lens and will not be replaced by anything else.

I understand the perspective thing and that's just my opinion. I like 85/1.8 better and it is not that long on FF. I never felt the need for having all of the fast primes in my collection (24, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200). What I want is 35 + 85 and 40 for the reasons I've mentioned before. However, I would get all the L primes if I could afford it ... even if I'd rarely use half of those. Before 40 came out, I was considering CZ 50/2 Macro for "do it all" lens, but my 150Macro is just too good to lose this double duty lens competition + it has AF. So, for now, I'm just trying different options, but it seems like 40 is here to stay .

P.S. I really like that 40 has a hard-stop on infinity.

 

[ecka]

+1

This is why there is a 50macro, 100 macro and a 180 macro. They take different perspectives of the same objects

There is more - 35macro, 60macro, 70macro, 90macro ... 150macro was my choice and I'm still saving for MP-E 65 .
I think that at 1:1 or higher magnifications the perspective is not that important (if at all). What matters is the lens working distance.

 

[smithy]

what!? thats retarded

give these guys a call I am sure they would probably ship accross the pond
http://www.leedervillecameras.com.au/CatalogueRetrieve.aspx?ProductID=2946434&A=SearchResult&SearchID=4967087&ObjectID=2946434&ObjectType=27

their 40mm is $199 too

Haha, I don't know if you've done a currency conversion recently, but it looks like prices in Oz are almost as bad as NZ.

 

[briansquibb]

+1

This is why there is a 50macro, 100 macro and a 180 macro. They take different perspectives of the same objects

There is more - 35macro, 60macro, 70macro, 90macro ... 150macro was my choice and I'm still saving for MP-E 65 .
I think that at 1:1 or higher magnifications the perspective is not that important (if at all). What matters is the lens working distance.

DOF is though - and the focal length impacts that when getting the 1:1