Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

[Kernuak]

On a 40mm, would f/2 really make a significant difference to the amount of blur ayway? I doubt the difference would be enough to compensate for the significant extra weight. It would also make the design more complex, making it more difficult to design it as sharp or as flare resitant as it seems to be from all the comments. Simple compositions are often the best and the same holds true for lens designs, why do you think classic lenses are so sought after? Also, who is to say that there isn't going to be a full frame mirrorless in the near future?

 

[RichATL]

For street photos a small inocuous lens is easier to use than a large white on as it makes you more 'invisible' So a shorty forty is good for street work. A 40 on ff is nearly wa, a 40 on a 1.6 is a standard lens.

40mm is not "wide angle" in the traditional sense...
Scientifically (physics) speaking... 43mm gives the same angle of view as the human eye...
so.. it's actually closer to "normal" than a 50mm
While technically speaking it is "wider" than the 43mm true normal... it's not what you should call "wide angle"
...
If you call it wide angle... might as well call it telephoto on a 1.6 sensor...being a 64mm equivalent.

Had there not been any 50mm canon lenses produced... the 40mm would be known as the "normal" lens...

 

[briansquibb]

For street photos a small inocuous lens is easier to use than a large white on as it makes you more 'invisible' So a shorty forty is good for street work. A 40 on ff is nearly wa, a 40 on a 1.6 is a standard lens.

40mm is not "wide angle" in the traditional sense...
Scientifically (physics) speaking... 43mm gives the same angle of view as the human eye...
so.. it's actually closer to "normal" than a 50mm
While technically speaking it is "wider" than the 43mm true normal... it's not what you should call "wide angle"
...
If you call it wide angle... might as well call it telephoto on a 1.6 sensor...being a 64mm equivalent.

Had there not been any 50mm canon lenses produced... the 40mm would be known as the "normal" lens...

I always think of a 35mm as a wa - and a 85mm as normal with a 135 as short telephoto and 300+ as a long telephoto.

I would guess I link it to the type of photo I am taking.

A 50mm headshot doesn't look natural to me as the nose gets prominence

We all have our little ways 8) 8) 8)

 

[Zlatko]

You are (mainly) using Canon FF DSLRs ... right? Does it really make a practical difference whether a lens is as compact and light as a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 or another 12mm shorter ... as the pancake 40? Sorry, but I just fail to that as a real advantage.

NOW, if the shorty 40 were not an EF lens, but an FF lens for a great Canon FF mirrorless system camera with the same price/value ratio ... THAT would make a whole lotta sense. Actually it would be something I'd consider "truly bleeding edge" in 2012.

Yes, I mainly use full frame, but also crop. I think each has its place. Yes, the practical difference in size is very small. I agree that the 35/2 and 50/1.8 are not much bigger, but I'm still very happy that the 40/2.8 is so small. Of course, I also wish for an updated, high-quality, quiet-focusing 35/2 and 50/1.8. I think those lenses will come too; it's just a matter of time. The fact that they chose to introduce a new 40/2.8 this year, and left the 35/2 and 50/1.8 for another year doesn't bother me too much. We can't have everything we want when we want it.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Canon mirrorless system, whether full-frame, APS-C or whatever. There are a number of ways they could make it great, and a number of ways they could make it fail. I hope they make it great. A big advantage of a mirrorless system is that the camera bodies will be smaller. To some degree, a pancake lens serves the purpose of reducing the size of the camera+lens package (if only the lens part of the equation), so it actually fulfills some of what I would want from a mirrorless system. If Canon made a set of high-quality, small, fast-focusing & quiet-focusing primes (including a new 35/2 and 50/1.8 ) for their full-frame DSLRs, I would probably buy those and lose interest in a mirrorless system.

 

[peederj]

...and it's here.

And it sucks.

Don't ge me wrong, the IQ is very good, and it can get in close (though not what I'd call macro). And it's charmingly cute little thing.

It's the focusing system that sucks. First off, I thought this was supposed to be a "silent motor" for video AF. This is anything but silent...sounds like an inkjet printer printing off a line as it moves into place. The AF is the slowest of any lens in my 16+ lens EF collection...even slower than the old Rebel kit lenses. It doesn't "chuk" into place like many other lenses, it just runs into place as if an inkjet printer motor was pushing it there...so perhaps in peak loudness it is quieter, but this nnnnnnnnh noise is far more annoying to me at least.

Also, I could not stand the focus-by-wire approach. I felt way out of control of my focus...I pull focus manually all the time for video, and my haptic skills fell useless upon this toy. It becomes a matter of timing rather than touch, which utterly and unforgivably sucks.

If this is the wave of the future, I'm buying up this era's better lenses so I don't have to wallow in such dreck. Sorry.

The IQ is very nice and the thing is small and lightweight.

I'm wondering if I send it back...it is cheap enough, small enough, unique enough to just squeeze out a little spot in my Pelikan. I guess I will take some sample shots on the 5d3 and rebels and see if I can manage.

But really I can't stand how it focuses, auto or manual. After this experience I'm definitely not even thinking of going MFT or other focus-by-wire mirrorless. Maybe Canon did this as a way of assuring pro loyalty to traditional SLR's and lenses.

 

[wickidwombat]

...and it's here.

And it sucks.

Don't ge me wrong, the IQ is very good, and it can get in close (though not what I'd call macro). And it's charmingly cute little thing.

It's the focusing system that sucks. First off, I thought this was supposed to be a "silent motor" for video AF. This is anything but silent...sounds like an inkjet printer printing off a line as it moves into place. The AF is the slowest of any lens in my 16+ lens EF collection...even slower than the old Rebel kit lenses. It doesn't "chuk" into place like many other lenses, it just runs into place as if an inkjet printer motor was pushing it there...so perhaps in peak loudness it is quieter, but this nnnnnnnnh noise is far more annoying to me at least.

Also, I could not stand the focus-by-wire approach. I felt way out of control of my focus...I pull focus manually all the time for video, and my haptic skills fell useless upon this toy. It becomes a matter of timing rather than touch, which utterly and unforgivably sucks.

If this is the wave of the future, I'm buying up this era's better lenses so I don't have to wallow in such dreck. Sorry.

The IQ is very nice and the thing is small and lightweight.

I'm wondering if I send it back...it is cheap enough, small enough, unique enough to just squeeze out a little spot in my Pelikan. I guess I will take some sample shots on the 5d3 and rebels and see if I can manage.

But really I can't stand how it focuses, auto or manual. After this experience I'm definitely not even thinking of going MFT or other focus-by-wire mirrorless. Maybe Canon did this as a way of assuring pro loyalty to traditional SLR's and lenses.

this might focus faster then

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/712-voigtlander40f2ff?start=1

 

[peederj]

...and it's here.

And it sucks.

Don't ge me wrong, the IQ is very good, and it can get in close (though not what I'd call macro). And it's charmingly cute little thing.

It's the focusing system that sucks. First off, I thought this was supposed to be a "silent motor" for video AF. This is anything but silent...sounds like an inkjet printer printing off a line as it moves into place. The AF is the slowest of any lens in my 16+ lens EF collection...even slower than the old Rebel kit lenses. It doesn't "chuk" into place like many other lenses, it just runs into place as if an inkjet printer motor was pushing it there...so perhaps in peak loudness it is quieter, but this nnnnnnnnh noise is far more annoying to me at least.

Also, I could not stand the focus-by-wire approach. I felt way out of control of my focus...I pull focus manually all the time for video, and my haptic skills fell useless upon this toy. It becomes a matter of timing rather than touch, which utterly and unforgivably sucks.

this might focus faster then

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/712-voigtlander40f2ff?start=1

I was vaguely tmepted by that lens and its 20 version but I felt the price/performance was off. But I am not hesitant to go manual-only with a lens.

Manually focusing on this thing sounds like squeezing a hamster. I mean, silly sounding. I wonder if my copy is louder than others, but I doubt it.

The fact there is no focus indicator to be found, anywhere, makes this poor for shoot-from-the-hip street photography. I guess you could gauge from how far out the front pokes (the front pokes out as it focuses out toward infinity) but there is no marking there on the barrel either. Maybe I could etch markings there? It's cheap enough no one would care.

I think the motor will blow out after a decade or so and all these focus-by-wire lenses will be garbage. The manual-only primes will still be appreciated. This is cheap because no one would view it as an investment.

The IQ is very good though. Why gum up a good lens with electronica? I am not a luddite, I favor good innovations, and this ain't. But it is cheap and small.

 

[wickidwombat]

i just got the 20mm gonna play with it today and over the weekend MF is actually very snappy with the AF confirm definately seems faster than hamster squeezing, aperture control is all done in camera on the canon versions too which is sweet

 

[AvTvM]

It's the focusing system that sucks. First off, I thought this was supposed to be a "silent motor" for video AF. This is anything but silent...sounds like an inkjet printer printing off a line as it moves into place. The AF is the slowest of any lens in my 16+ lens EF collection...even slower than the old Rebel kit lenses. It doesn't "chuk" into place like many other lenses, it just runs into place as if an inkjet printer motor was pushing it there...so perhaps in peak loudness it is quieter, but this nnnnnnnnh noise is far more annoying to me at least.

Also, I could not stand the focus-by-wire approach. I felt way out of control of my focus...I pull focus manually all the time for video, and my haptic skills fell useless upon this toy. It becomes a matter of timing rather than touch, which utterly and unforgivably sucks.

ouch!

Did Canon not write something in their hyped-language press-release to the effect this weirdo STM motor AF drive was especially "suitable to video capture" because it is supposed to be so "near silent"?

If it is noisy, would this not be an even bigger spoiler to video than the focus limitations in manual focus?

I believe they just chose this STM because it was 10 cents cheaper to source than a proper Ring-USM AF drive. And they expect to and will actually sell millions of this thing ... because it is "oh so cute".

 

[briansquibb]

It is quiet but not silent. It is more accurate than the 50 f/1.4 and doesn't do the minor adjustments - it just rolls up to the focus point and stopn - perfect for AF in video where AF jiggling is very irritating

 

[thebowtie]

It is quiet but not silent. It is more accurate than the 50 f/1.4 and doesn't do the minor adjustments - it just rolls up to the focus point and stopn - perfect for AF in video where AF jiggling is very irritating

I'm pretty sure the claim for "silent focus, good for video use" is qualified ONLY for the EOS 650 / T4i - since half of the 'quiet' autofocus technology is embedded in that camera body - and it's the combination of that camera body's CD/PD autofocus capability, the firmware and the STM lens that makes it silent.
At least, that's what the marketecture says..

 

[AvTvM]

It is quiet but not silent. It is more accurate than the 50 f/1.4 and doesn't do the minor adjustments - it just rolls up to the focus point and stopn - perfect for AF in video where AF jiggling is very irritating

The 50 1.4 is no good comparison because its got a weirdo af as well. USM but Not really. That is One of The Reasons why i Would have preferred to get a 50 1.4 mk. II First. With proper fast and totally silent Ring USM. Same as in Day The 85 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 ... Canon Knows how to make These.

 

[briansquibb]

It was relevant to me as the 50mm was the one it was going to replace. The 50 f/1.8 has poor bokeh so the other one was the f/1.4

Still better a comparison that you can relate to than none at all

No good comparing it to my 200 was it ???

 

[AvTvM]

It was relevant to me as the 50mm was the one it was going to replace. The 50 f/1.8 has poor bokeh so the other one was the f/1.4

a 40/2.8 can in no way replace a 50/1.4. There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake. But there still is an urgent need for an improved 50/1.4 II and an improved 50/1.8 II and an improved 35/2.0. All of them need 8-9 nicely rounded aperture blades, all of them need super-spectrum coating, all of them need true Ring-USM with FTM - ultrafast and totally silent - rather than the weirdo and cheapo new STM-AF drive. All of them could also use a newly developed optical formula and glass to achieve better MTFs.

What does Canon do? Come up with an unneeded, bleedingly expensive 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and a 40/2.8 pancake - which at least is optically good, cheap and cute looking. ALl of these are "nice to have" in Canon's large lens-lineup, but none of them had any priority at all, whereas the 50 and 35 are in urgent need of an upgrade.

That's all I am saying.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

a 40/2.8 can in no way replace a 50/1.4.

It most certainly can, depending on what you're using the lens for.

If you got the 50 for its field of view and image quality but wished your DSLR was more unobtrusive, the 40 is the perfect lens for you. Of course, if you got the 50 for its low light capabilities and razor-thin depth of field, the 40 isn't going to replace it any time soon.

A 5DIII with a Shorty McForty looks like a high-end P&S, especially if you do the Live View thing and hold it at arm's length and turn on all the obnoxious beeping noises.

A 5DIII with a 50 f/1.4 looks like a "serious" "real" "pro" camera.

The one makes you look like a regular person, maybe a bit more into snapshots or with a bit more disposable income than average, but not out of the ordinary. The other has a completely different vibe and instantly turns you into a photographer, somebody whom people are going to notice as soon as you start snapping away. "Paparazzi," they'll think, not just somebody else in the crowd taking snapshots.

There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.

Funny. If that were the case, then why is it doing so well in the market?

b&

 

[AvTvM]

There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.

Funny. If that were the case, then why is it doing so well in the market?

Because it is "cheap", optically good and most of all "oh so cute".
An equally improved 50/1.4 II at 399 or a 35/2.0 at 299 would also do very well. And an improved 50/1.8 II for 199 with improved IQ, 8 rounded aperture blades, Ring-USM, and metal mount.

Other than that: a 5D 1/2/3 shooter never looks like a P&S snapshooter, no matter what lens is attached. The body alone is too fat for that.
And it would be very difficult to take good photos holding a 5D 1/2/3 at arms length in live view. The body alone is too heavy for that.

 

[spinworkxroy]

The 40mm for one...is a very handy little lens to bring around as a "spare"
For example, when i went to the zoo for an outing, i only had a tele lens attached to my camera.
I didn't bring a bag or any other lenses/attachments etc..just the camera and a strap.
In instances where a tele lens is too "zoomed" where i wanted a wider view, i had the 40mm in my pocket..
It is zoo small and light, it just felt like having another phone in the pocket to it was good to have around..

In situations like this and with many others i can think of, this is what i see the 40mm pancake being great for.

 

[peederj]

Annnnhh well I ended up keeping it. :

It's half the size of the 50/1.4 and the corner quality at 2.8 on the 5D3 is just a hair better than the 50/1.4. But the IQ is better on the 50 center I think and I of course much prefer the focus even though that's not a great focus system either.

Maybe practicing with this focus by wire will prepare me if I'm ever on a GH2 video shoot for whatever reason. I dislike it. I shoot all-manual most of the time, I was raised on manual SLRs of the 80's, I think an SLR should feel like control, not a P&S. This makes the SLR feel like a P&S but with no zoom ability. But the focus is like zooming a cheap camcorder with toggley buttons.

Cheap and cheerful as they say. The pictures really are quite nice, on FF it's a good look, lets you squeeze in a two-shot without making people too fat like a 35. But the 50/1.4 takes a better picture at 2.8 for my money. Corners aren't critical in my world.

 

[PhotoCat]

just got my 40 2.8 with high expectation with color according to other reviews. Sadly the color and shadow detail is almost identical to my 50/1.8, compared with no filter on. I am keeping 50/1.8 & returning the 40 2.8.
Canon really needs to upgrade 50/1.4 due to motor stuck problem...

 

[briansquibb]

It was relevant to me as the 50mm was the one it was going to replace. The 50 f/1.8 has poor bokeh so the other one was the f/1.4

a 40/2.8 can in no way replace a 50/1.4. There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake. But there still is an urgent need for an improved 50/1.4 II and an improved 50/1.8 II and an improved 35/2.0. All of them need 8-9 nicely rounded aperture blades, all of them need super-spectrum coating, all of them need true Ring-USM with FTM - ultrafast and totally silent - rather than the weirdo and cheapo new STM-AF drive. All of them could also use a newly developed optical formula and glass to achieve better MTFs.

What does Canon do? Come up with an unneeded, bleedingly expensive 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and a 40/2.8 pancake - which at least is optically good, cheap and cute looking. ALl of these are "nice to have" in Canon's large lens-lineup, but none of them had any priority at all, whereas the 50 and 35 are in urgent need of an upgrade.

That's all I am saying.

Let me say it again. My pancake was going to replace my 50 f/1.4. I dont shoot wide open with the f/1.4 because of the shallow DOF so I dont give a toss about it 'only' being f/2.8

I dont give a toss about the Canon range. I dont give a toss whether it is silent. I just reported it as I found it.

If you dont like it then dont buy it - but a lot of people will buy it as it represents a lot of bang for the buck. The argument for APS-C has been cheapness including cheap lens. Well Canon listened and have produced a cheap full frame lens - ready for the cheap FF methinks

How have you found your pancake and the 24/28 IS? You have expressed such a strong anti opinion I can only assume your experience is not very good - or were you just disappointed that you weren't getting a 50 f/1.2 II FOR 50 F/1.8 PRICE.