Canon 35 2 IS v Canon 40 2.8 pancake

[jd7]

A question for anyone who has the 40mm pancake and the Canon 35 f2 IS: do you see yourself keeping the 40 and 35 in your kit long term or do you see them as largely redundant? Which of the two do you prefer? I realise the 35 is a stop faster before you even take into account the IS, while the 40 is much smaller and lighter (although I gather the 35 is still fairly small and light), but I'm keen to hear from anyone who's used them both.

I've currently got a 40mm pancake, a Sigma 50 1.4 and an old Canon 28 1.8 (which I used as a general purpose prime on crop, but which hasn't seen much use since I got a 6D). I'm planning to sell the 28, and I'm thinking about getting the 35 f2 IS but I wonder if I need (can justify!) having a 35 and a 40 (And a 50!). I'd be using the lens mostly as a general walk around/street/low light prime when I want to go small and light (so something like the Sigma 35 1.4 isn't so appealing to me despite it's IQ reputation). Another option is to sell the 40 as well as the 28, and replace them both with the 35. Or I could just forget the 35 and stick with the 40. To the extent relevant, I do have a Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM as well. (I'd actually like to reduce the number of lenses I own, but somehow I seem to find buying easier than selling!)

Thanks for any comments you can offer!

 

[Zv]

A question for anyone who has the 40mm pancake and the Canon 35 f2 IS: do you see yourself keeping the 40 and 35 in your kit long term or do you see them as largely redundant? Which of the two do you prefer? I realise the 35 is a stop faster before you even take into account the IS, while the 40 is much smaller and lighter (although I gather the 35 is still fairly small and light), but I'm keen to hear from anyone who's used them both.

I've currently got a 40mm pancake, a Sigma 50 1.4 and an old Canon 28 1.8 (which I used as a general purpose prime on crop, but which hasn't seen much use since I got a 6D). I'm planning to sell the 28, and I'm thinking about getting the 35 f2 IS but I wonder if I need (can justify!) having a 35 and a 40 (And a 50!). I'd be using the lens mostly as a general walk around/street/low light prime when I want to go small and light (so something like the Sigma 35 1.4 isn't so appealing to me despite it's IQ reputation). Another option is to sell the 40 as well as the 28, and replace them both with the 35. Or I could just forget the 35 and stick with the 40. To the extent relevant, I do have a Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM as well. (I'd actually like to reduce the number of lenses I own, but somehow I seem to find buying easier than selling!)

Thanks for any comments you can offer!

Which focal length do you prefer? Wide or normal? Or a bit of both? It's really down to personal pref.

You could sell all of them and replace with the 35 IS. The 28 and 40 are very similar in terms of focal length. You can easily replicate the "look" of both with one 35mm lens.

A 50 is different though and has a unique look all of it's own. You might still find it useful.

Personally I'd sell the 28 no matter what. Keep the pancake for travel and keep the 50 for shallow dof stuff and creative uses.

 

[Random Orbits]

I don't have the exact lenses you're talking about, but I have lenses at each of the focal lengths you're considering.

It really comes down to how you'll use each lens. Based on what you wrote, it makes sense to get the 35 f/2 IS, and it will largely take the place of your 40 f/2.8. The 28 f/1.8 can be sold since you're not using it, and the 35 f/2 IS and 50 f/1.4 will be used a bit depending on your focal length need. The question is what do with the 40 f/2.8. It's size advantage isn't realized on the 6D because the body is so much larger (i.e. 6D + 40 is not that much more compact than 6D + 35 f/2 IS), and it doesn't give a larger aperture, so it doesn't have a clear advantage over a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom.

However, I think the 40 still has a place if you have a telephoto zoom (70-xxx), as Neuro has pointed out on other threads. It can be kept in a pocket and used when when the telephoto is too long. I usually only bring the 70-200 to my daughters' soccer events, but I've been asked to take team photos on occasion, and other parents whip out the cell phones. At 70mm, it's hard to get a team shot without the cell phone cameramen in the in way. The 40 would have been handy...

 

[jebrady03]

To me, it makes sense to ditch the 28 and 40 as the 35mm IS is going to do everything better than either of those and the focal lengths are SO close it doesn't really warrant keeping them.

Having said that, if you think the size of the 40 will come in handy, it's worth it to keep it. You'll only get $125-140 on the used market (if you're lucky) and while that can certainly help to offset the cost of the new lens, it's certainly not a substantial sum.

As soon as I get the 35mm IS, my plan is to sell the 40 as well.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I have both only because I picked up the pancake for sh*ts and grins when it was on sale.

Optically, they are both very good. But based on the information you have provided us with your current bag, I would say get rid of the 28 and the pancake and just go with the 35. It is a great all around lens for the money. It is optically great (plenty sharp wide open), focuses quickly/accurately. and has Canon's current IS along with the faster aperture over the 40.

The only reason I would keep the 40 is if for some reason you absolutely had to have a pancake or if you have a body with servo mode in video for quick captures. Having the stm lens for my M allows me to just set the camera on a tripod or other flat surface and it will record + focus silently on it's own without me having to do it manually. Though this is by no means a recommended method for any amount of serious videography. But it does work well for my home video purposes.

 

[bholliman]

Based on what you wrote, it makes sense to get the 35 f/2 IS, and it will largely take the place of your 40 f/2.8. The 28 f/1.8 can be sold since you're not using it, and the 35 f/2 IS and 50 f/1.4 will be used a bit depending on your focal length need.

+1 These lenses are all close enough in focal length that you can simplify your kit by buying a 35 f/2 IS and selling your 28 f/1.8 and 40 pancake. Personally, I think 35mm and 50mm are different enough to justify having both.

However, I think the 40 still has a place if you have a telephoto zoom (70-xxx), as Neuro has pointed out on other threads. It can be kept in a pocket and used when when the telephoto is too long. I usually only bring the 70-200 to my daughters' soccer events, but I've been asked to take team photos on occasion, and other parents whip out the cell phones. At 70mm, it's hard to get a team shot without the cell phone cameramen in the in way. The 40 would have been handy...

I'd argue that the 35 f/2 IS is small enough to fill this "pocket lens" role. Yes, its 11.8 ounces vs. 4.6 for the pancake, but its still pretty compact.

 

[bradfordswood]

I recently purchased the 35 IS and sold my 40 pancake. As others have said, the focal length is nearly identical. The 40 was really great for being so small, but other than it's size there is really no advantage (to me).

The big thing for me is the IS of the 35.

 

[sdsr]

Almost exactly a year ago I rented the Sigma 35mm and the Canon 35mm IS (using both on FF) and the only significant advantage I could see in the Sigma was its remarkably good coma control, much better than any other fast lens I've used. Unable to decide whether that mattered more to me than the IS of the Canon, and because I'm not sure how much I like 35mm anyway (more often than not it seems either too long or not long enough for my purposes), I bought the 28mm IS instead when Adorama (or whoever it was) had it on sale last year - it's vastly better than the 28mm 1.8, 28mm really is different from 40mm, and I like the pancake for various reasons, so for now I have both of those.

Both lenses you're pondering are excellent, so your choice should be made based on personal considerations that only you can answer. E.g. What is it about a 35mm IS that's prompting you to consider it? Are there situations when you would have taken a better shot with IS? If you want wider than 40mm and want IS, would 28mm IS make more sense, or is 2.8 too slow? Or are you ditching the 28mm 1.8 because it's too wide? If you're asking whether it's silly to have 35mm + 40mm, maybe not - the 40mm takes up less space, weighs less, and could fill in if a similar-length lens needs repair and thus may sometimes have practical benefits (besides, the 40mm is so cheap you may think it's not worth the effort of selling it).

 

[Albi86]

I don't have the 40mm but I can tell you why I chose the 35 IS: one stop faster and IS. It's not as small as a pancake but it's small enough attached to a FF camera and weighs little more than 300g.

If I were you I would make it a price matter: do you like the focal length? If yes, take the 35. If it's only a matter of having one small lens when you need it, then stick with the 40.

 

[jd7]

Thanks to all of you for comments - they're greatly appreciated!

To try to respond to a few of the comments and questions ...

I'm having a bit of trouble working out which focal length/s I prefer! For a long time I shot a crop sensor camera with 24mm (ie wide end of 24-70) as my widest option, which is close to 40mm in FF FOV terms, and I've only belatedly started to appreciate what I was missing out on in not having something wider. That said, I've done some playing around with my 24-70 on the 6D now and I'm starting to like 35mm. I'm finding I often feel like 50mm is either not wide enough or not long enough. In comparison, I feel like 35mm lets the photo "breath" a little bit more - wide enough to give a subject a bit more context, and the slight distortion (correct expression?) towards the corners adds a bit of interest to the photo.

I've thought about just keeping the 28 1.8. It may not be great but my feeling is it's not as bad as many of the reviews make out (or perhaps I got a good copy ... or I'm just not very discerning!). For the size and cost, I liked it a lot as a general purpose walk around lens on crop. On FF though I feel like I'm noticing its lack of resolution away from the centre more (well, I guess I'm seeing more away from the centre now), plus I feel like 28 is getting a bit wider than I'd like so I just don't see myself going out for a day with just the 28. Why is wider than I'd like? My plan is to use this lens (ie a lens around the 28mm to 40mm mark) for things like street photography, travel when I want to go light/inconspicuous, if I'm meeting friends (could well be at night) and want to be able to take some casual shots without the camera seeming too obtrusive. I feel like 28 starts to get a bit wide for people shots - it's fine if you have one or two people and you keep them close to the centre, but if you've got people towards the edges the distortion is likely to be too much. Anyway, I'm just not feeling excited about the 28 so it's not spending much time on my camera, so think I'd be better off selling it.

Given what I've said about the 50mm focal length, why not sell my Sigma 50 1.4, especially since it's not a compact lens? Well, I seem to have a fairly good one (I haven't had too much problem with its AF), I like the bokeh it can produce and the IQ generally, I doubt I'd get a whole lot if I sold it (used market here in Australia is a bit limited I think) and it's my only 1.4 aperture lens! And I'm not ready to give up on the 50mm focal length yet. I've seen plenty of great photos taken with a 50! I think it may be a case of me getting a clearer idea in my mind of when it's the "right" focal length for what I want to do.

As for the 40 pancake I really do like it. The IQ seems great to me, and it's small size and weight are fantastic. Even compared to the 28 1.8 (which I believe is slightly smaller than the 35 2 IS), the camera feels so much smaller and "easier" to carry with the 40. It feels like you're basically just carrying the body - there is (almost) nothing sticking off the front of it, so it's very easy to carry, squeeze into a bag, etc. On the other hand, somehow I feel like if I'm going to be limited to a single focal length, I should have a wider aperture than 2.8. The reality is for much of what I'd be shooting with this lens, 2.8 is probably enough - but I do like shallow DOF field shots and I'd really like to have the option to go wider than 2.8 even when I'm just wandering around. Also, I rarely shoot off a tripod so having IS would be valuable to me. It won't help with subject movement (to state the obvious) but I can see it being useful to me in many circumstances where I'd use this lens. I've only recently started to appreciate the value of IS in terms of being able to keep your ISO down and hence keep your IQ up in lower light.

So, I guess what I was really asking is - does having an extra stop on the 35, plus the IS, make enough of a difference that the 35 2 IS is a genuine upgrade from the pancake? Or does the 35 have better IQ than the pancake that it's an upgrade on that ground alone?

Of course, as was pointed out, the pancake is a pretty cheap lens to begin with, so I wouldn't get much for it if I sold it ... and it makes a very useful companion to a 70-200 (I do have one - it's focal length range I love on FF) so maybe it's worth holding on to anyway. That said, I see one comment that the 35 2 IS is small enough to fill the "pocket" lens role anyway.

All things for me to ponder. I think I'll see if I can find a 35 2 IS in a store and take a few shots so I can compare them to what I'm getting out of my 40 (and my 28).

 

[Albi86]

So, I guess what I was really asking is - does having an extra stop on the 35, plus the IS, make enough of a difference that the 35 2 IS is a genuine upgrade from the pancake? Or does the 35 have better IQ than the pancake that it's an upgrade on that ground alone?

At f/4-5.6, in a sunny day, no.

Indoors, in the evening, for portraits, for action and pretty much anything else... yes, it does make a difference.

 

[Ruined]

I owned both.

They both produce excellent pictures, but the 35mm is significant better at the same apertures and has IS. I sold the 40mm.

It really depends, would you prefer maximum quality and decent portability (35 IS), or very good quality and maximum portability (40mm)?

I would also say, a 35 and a 50 is a bit more useful than a 40 and a 50.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

Nobody's considered that:
a) you have the Sigma 24-70 (which covers all of the prime lengths you are talking about)
b) you want something "small and light" for ease/stealth

When you want to go wider, you have the zoom. Ditch the 28. I think that 2.8 is fine at 24-28mm. How often do you need a super fast 50? Can you do with the 2.8 of the zoom? (if you're trying to simplify your life). That said, I understand it's a pretty big difference 1.4 to 2.8.

I've been tempted by the 35is. Looks lovely but haven't had a chance to try it. But I really think on the 6D you can get away with the 40 pancake and f2.8. I have one, got it for $129 new. It's tiny. For example, I have a little fanny pack (not a big slr one but a little north face hiking one that I put some extra foam padding in) and I can carry the 6D with the 40 and it doesn't stick out at all or look stupid. So very easy to carry around.

Here's an alternate suggestion:
Exercise some patience, save your money, and sell the 28, and use the 40 for as long as you can until you find you're frustrated by blurred images (because you didn't crank up the 6D's amazing high-iso) or you find that the quality just isn't there (which I'm betting you won't, especially on the street). I totally get the 35is advantages. It's tempting. But that 40 really is stellar. Do you really need to spend on the 35? See if you can do without it.