Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]

[elflord]

I disagree, because I think this is going to be an xpro1 style system, not large like a Dslr but not too tiny like the m4/3 systems. Why would canon cut into their g1x profits if it's just as small, cheaper and can change lenses?

I believe it will be large enough to justify fast aperture lenses like a Leica or the xpro1. They just decided not to make a faster lens.

I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.

 

[distant.star]

.
Damn, now I'll be making pancakes for breakfast tomorrow!! That stack looks too good.

 

[pwp]

It looks to me like it would appeal to a lot of Rebel owners who are ready to graduate from the kit lens but want something a little sexier than a 50mm f/1.8. Just my take.

Yep this could be spot-on. The 50 f/1.8 is not a sexy lens. It is asonishing value at under $100 new, but few copies really deliver at anything wider than f/5.6. With the pancake, f/2.8 should be a non-issue provided it's sharp wide open. f/2.8 also helps deliver on a low price and very compact dimensions.

I'd be close to 100% certain that this is not a mirrorless lens. Expect to see a new range of glass for the mirrorless Canon.

Paul Wright

 

[kdsand]

Hmm.

I was just thinking about point & shoots. Perhaps Canon will put out something to draw out the high end point & shoot owners. Like a power shot with removable lenses (very crudely put but anyway).

 

[Positron]

- Sony NEX : 1.6 crop factor : shallow DOF but few lenses, where Canon has more than 60 lenses...

Remember that the NEX uses a different mount from the Alpha line, despite the exact same size sensor. Canon's EF line will not be meaningful for the vast majority of users if their mirrorless camera/cameras is/are small, as it must be if they want it to be popular.

 

[Zlatko]

Well, the 50mm f/1.4 has USM, so that would fit your needs in regards to "high quality 50mm", and the price is within this realm (usually <$400). Aside from adding IS, Canon doesnt seem eager to update their non-L primes, so, I wouldn't expect too much.

The 50/1.4 is more medium quality than high quality. One can make fine photos with it, but it is not built very well.

Based on their prices, the recently announced 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 would seem to be high quality non-L primes. Ideally, Canon would make a 35/2 and 50/2 or 5/1.8 to the same higher standard ... small lenses that are more durable, focus quietly and perform well.

 

[BXL]

I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.

Why not? Think of the Pentax K-01: it's an APS-C mirrorless system using the Pentax K mount. And Pentax also offers a 40mm f:2.8 pancake for the K-01. Why shouldn't Canon introduce a similar - hopefully less ugly - system?

 

[RLPhoto]

I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.

Why not? Think of the Pentax K-01: it's an APS-C mirrorless system using the Pentax K mount. And Pentax also offers a 40mm f:2.8 pancake for the K-01. Why shouldn't Canon introduce a similar - hopefully less ugly - system?

Agreed, and make the 40mm F/2 and i'll be happy to drop more cash for canon.

 

[Rocky]

40mm f2.8 lens has been the lens of choice for "fully auto" point and shoot camera for a LONG time in the good old film dates. It is slightly wider than the 50mm "standard lens" but not wide enough to cause "perspective distortion", like the 35mm lens. In order to make it small. Canon havet o keep it at f2.8. Nowadys, DSLR will have "no nise" up to ISO 400, or even higher, easily. So for most situations, f2.8 is more than fast enough. So the 40mm f2.8 will make an ideal walk around lens for FF. As for APS-C, it be comes 64mm equilvalent. It is not wide enough for general use. That make ir quite "useless". Just hope that It is a high quality lens even wide opened, with REAL USM.

 

[louislbnc]

If there's anything true to this rumour it just further proves that Canon is working on a smaller camera with interchangeable lenses. Though I doubt it will be mirrorless. If Canon wants to do it right, they should use EF and EF-S lenses. One of the problem with most mirrorless systems is that the lenses cost a fortune for something that most people either use as an upgrade to a point and shoot giving a bit more freedom or something that's smaller than a DSLR so it gets used a secondary traveling camera.

For example, Nikon's 1 series doesn't seem too attractive, the sensor is too small, there's little point to use a 2.7 crop factor with Nikon lenses and the body isn't that much smaller than a small DSLR. Not to mention that a lot of these camera aren't really pocket sized, oddly shaped and fragile with their zoom lenses.

What I see Canon coming out with is a diminutive DSLR rather than a mirrorless. Look at the Rebels, they're not that big. If the camera is going to use an APS-C sensor, it will still need the same distance between the sensor and lens. Might as well keep the mirror in there. Sure you could make smaller lens that go in a bit more but it could be possible to make quite small pancake lenses for EFS or EF mount. By keeping the mirror, the viewfinder would be much more pleasing to look into and it focus faster. (I'm not sure if the cost of the mirror system offsets the eye-piece display price)

To make it smaller and cheaper, deliberately cut corners. Give it 8-10 Mpx. There's no real need for more. It's not like this is the kind of camera that will get endlessly retouched to do a Vogue cover. With the lower pixel count it should be able to do very well in low light. Which brings me to my next point, with low light capability and being marketed to be used with a new set of fast pancake primes, ditch the flash. Might as well ditch most of the auto-focus system as well, just keep one cross type in the middle. With a simpler camera, it wouldn't need that fast of a computer and might be able to give it a smaller battery too.

TL;DR I think Canon should look into making a smaller and cheaper APS-C DSLR by sacrificing features in order to compete with mirrorless cameras. Other than being a bit larger, it would have an edge over mirrorless in many other aspects (focus speed, sensor size, low light capability, lens selection, view finder, metering...).

 

[kdsand]

I wonder if production has even started or if they'll be showing off prototypes like they did with the yet elusive 24&28 2.8 I.S..

 

[BRNexus6]

Will Canon ever release a nice inexpensive 30mm 1.8 for APS-C DSLR's? The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is the best option we have, but it's not a great lens optically. I don't understand Canon.

 

[BRNexus6]

I wonder if production has even started or if they'll be showing off prototypes like they did with the yet elusive 24&28 2.8 I.S..

Those 24/28mm 2.8 lenses are way too expensive. Why would someone choose those two lenses that cost $800 each when you can get the 17-55mm 2.8 IS, or Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 OS for cheaper?

 

[Haydn1971]

Speaking hypothetically, if a smaller sensor was used with a EF mount, couldn't the distance between the lens mount and sensor be reduced ?

 

[kdsand]

I wonder if production has even started or if they'll be showing off prototypes like they did with the yet elusive 24&28 2.8 I.S..

Those 24/28mm 2.8 lenses are way too expensive. Why would someone choose those two lenses that cost $800 each when you can get the 17-55mm 2.8 IS, or Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 OS for cheaper?

That's why I just bought a Sigma 17-50mm. The value pushed me :-[ to cheat on Canon.
No regrets so far .

 

[elflord]

I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.

Why not? Think of the Pentax K-01: it's an APS-C mirrorless system using the Pentax K mount. And Pentax also offers a 40mm f:2.8 pancake for the K-01. Why shouldn't Canon introduce a similar - hopefully less ugly - system?

Why not ? Because if you use an SLR mount with a longer flange distance, you eliminate the size savings that you would otherwise derive from removing a mirror box. The K-01 is about the same size as the Canon Rebel XS (not quite as high because the viewfinder is removed but width and depth are similar).

Canon already have the capability to build an SLR that is close to the size of the Pentax K-01, the only thing missing are small APS-C lenses (Pentax have several).

They're much better off building a mount with a shorter flange distance which would still allow them to adapt EF mount lenses, then also ship an EF-mount adapter with full electronic coupling (so that it works with EF mount lenses).

 

[maxxevv]

Speaking hypothetically, if a smaller sensor was used with a EF mount, couldn't the distance between the lens mount and sensor be reduced ?

No you can't. The flange to sensor distance is fixed as that is the 'projection plane' of the image for a given lens design. The specific design distance which an image is to be projected , relative to its flange mount plane.

 

[Rocky]

Pantax K-01 has the right idea. It let customer use their existing k mount lens WITHOUT adapter. At the same time, Pentax also supplies smaller lens for customers that want to keep the system small. People may agrue that keeping the mirror box will make the camera bigger. The reality is that with the 'pancake lens" the size should be the same as other mirrorless with the lens mounted.
I thinks Canon should use K-01 as a model and improve on it. The EF mount is large enough to let the lens "sinks" within the mount. That can make the system very small.
Also canon needs to give us fast AF. Even the S100 and the G12 are too slow.

 

[elflord]

The reality is that with the 'pancake lens" the size should be the same as other mirrorless with the lens mounted.

Not true, because other mirrorless cameras also have pancake lenses.

There are two key distances -- the distance from front to rear element and the distance from the rear element to the sensor (the flange distance).

On a micro 4/3 camera, the flange distance is 20mm, so with a pancake lens you have 20mm + the depth of the pancake lens (20mm for the Panasonic 14mm pancake). Flange distance for most SLRs is over 40mm, so regardless of how thin the pancake is, you get a larger package.

The two reasons that mirrorless cameras are smaller are (1) they use a shorter flange distance which reduces the distance between front element and sensor by about an inch (so they are about 1 inch thinner for similar optic) and (2) they remove the viewfinder. Mirrorless systems do tend to include more pancake lenses but it is also possible to make pancakes for SLRs (e.g. Pentax make several, Voigtlander also have some). In other words, if you use an SLR mount, you gain little or no size advantage by going mirrorless (again, you lose some height if you throw away the viewfinder)

 

[paul13walnut5]

Quote from: Haydn1971 on May 23, 2012, 03:52:42 PM

Speaking hypothetically, if a smaller sensor was used with a EF mount, couldn't the distance between the lens mount and sensor be reduced ?


No you can't. The flange to sensor distance is fixed as that is the 'projection plane' of the image for a given lens design. The specific design distance which an image is to be projected , relative to its flange mount plane.

Changing the distance between the mount and the sensor would render exsisting EF & EF-s lenses redundant, or at least unable to focus at infinity.

However, there may actually be more in this...

Canon have already adapted the EF mount so that EF-s lenses can be used, EF-s being lenses with shorter back focus, where the rear element protrudes deeper into the camera throat (thus the need to prevent EF-s lenses mounting on cameras with full frame mirrors)

So if the EF-s idea can work, then could an extension of this idea work? Retaining the EF / EF-s mount and flange distance, but with shorter back focus again lenses, ("EF-x?") so reducing the extension of the lens in front of the camera?

Obviously this would probably mean a mirrorless body but crucially retain an APS-C sensor. Remove the pop up flash, or move it off centre, and you now have a smaller body.

This would make the overall package of camera + lens smaller. Which is a more desirable objective. I mean, how daft do m43 cameras look with anything other than a pancake on them?

Such a solution would mean that although EOS-X users could use their EF and EF-s mount lenses, regular EOS FF and EOS APS-C users could not use the "EF-x" lenses....

UNLESS.. The EF-x lenses could initiate MLU when mounted, say a collapsable design where the rear element stays well forward until the lens is mounted and MLU engaged. So long as your EOS has live view then your EF-x lens would be fine.

I think I've cracked it.