Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

[traveller]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

I've got a nasty suspicion that you might be on to something here... Despite most reviewers panning the new Pentax K-01 for having all the drawbacks of a mirrorless design with few of the size benefits, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon chose to follow them down this route to try and protect their investment in the EF mount.

The other logical reason might be if Canon were planning to stun us all with a compact full frame model ('entry level'?). I can't see that a lens such as this would make any of the 5D series practically smaller compared to mounting 50mm prime. Of course, I could be underestimating the number of people who would buy this lens just because it looks "cool" or "cute" (choose you gender ;D).

 

[noncho]

Looks nice, if it was f2 would be nice, but larger and expensive.

If wide open is with great image quality I'll probably go for it.

 

[mb66energy]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

 

[Astro]

I take back me bashing the 40mm 2.8 lens for not being f/2.

It looks so awesome! Im already sold.

of course the look of a lens is more important then anything else...

 

[trulandphoto]

Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake

I really don't get it. I'm a crop shooter and this focal length seems too long for a walk around lens and is there really any benefit to something this small on the FF bodies?

30mm or so and you might have sold me, besides it isn't as if my 35mm f2 is all that big.

The textbook definition of a "normal" lens is one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the imaging area. If you remember your Pythagoras, a full-frame 24mm x 36mm sensor has a diagonal of 43.27mm, meaning this 40 gives you as close to a normal lens as you'll find. I could see mounting it to an un-gripped 5D for a street / party type of setup. Hell, it looks like it's no bigger than an extension tube!

b&

Totally get the focal length for FF, but is there any benefit to something this small on such a big camera? Doesn't look like it would even extend past the hand grip! Hey, performance being equal I guess smaller is always better, but things like the 35 f2 and 50 1.8 are already tiny and light.

You answered your own question. [my emphasis added]

 

[friedmud]

If it's cheap (like the 50 f1.8) and has good autofocus (unlike the 50 f1.8!), I'll probably pick one up to attach to my old XSi as a walkaround lens for my wife. The XSi is small and light... so she likes to use it with the 50 f1.8 which fits her small hands well... so this will be even better.

 

[moreorless]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

The fact its come to light now just a few days before what looks to be a new Rebel release makes me think not, I wouldnt be supprized to see this offered as a kit lens with the 650D.

An EF mount mirrorless really only makes sense to be if its also possible to mount lenses with a very short backfocus distance this having much of there lenght inside the body cutting down the total package or as a very cheap entry level model at an xxxxD price(so allowing for a top line sensor with money saved on the lack of mirror instead.

My guess is the mirrorless will be very much inline with the NEX and m43 to start with, parhaps a bit cheaper than the former.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

So , for those concern the F-Stop , please forgive this lens and go for the L , faster lens with higher price and bulkier size.........

I don't have the cash to buy L, nor do I see the benefit of f/2.8 primes over the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM for FF or EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for APS-C.

I agree with preppyak - if f/2.8 is the standard for new non-L primes, sales would drop to the floor.

 

[traveller]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

Can you explain how the camera in your 'artist's' impression offer any advantages over a DSLR? It looks like a Canon version of the Pentax K-01, a camera that seems to spectacularly miss the whole point of mirrorless cameras by having all their deficiencies (poor AF, no viewfinder) without their biggest advantage -size:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,34
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,326
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,99

[Note: I think that the Canon 'Rebels' could be slimmed down in size quite a bit, which is why I included a link to the Sony A37]

Once you've made a camera that's too big to easily fit in a pocket, you might as well go the whole hog and give it a mirror for phase detect AF and a decent viewfinder.

 

[BXL]

i still cant see the point of all these f2.8 primes coming out

There have been f/2.8 primes before, like the "old" 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8. I own the 28mm since ages and it is a decent lens. Now those two lenses got replaced by new versions with IS, USM and maybe/hopefully even have a better image quality. If this is the case, at least I would consider to buy the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM.

Regarding the pancake, it's defiantly a nice looking lens. It has a metal bayonet and the finish looks and it fancies a high quality look than the faster nifty fifty. If the image quality image quality surpasses my tammy and the nifty fifty it is worth a try.

 

[BXL]

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

I do... why?

First of all, right from the start of such a mirror less camera, there a tons of lenses available. The Nikon 1 system only got 4 lenses so far. The second reason is that most people think twice before investing in a new system. Having invested into the EF-System, there is less hesitation to buy a mirror less body to accompany and even backup the more professional equipment. And last but not least, an APS-C or even FF mirror less system is something to differentiate Canon from the competition... and to succeed in the market, Canon needs something to separate them from Nikon, mFT etc.

 

[Inwardlens]

I am really confused by the number of people complaining about how *slow* this lens is.

When did f2.8 become slow? Sure I love my 35mm f1.4, and the 50mm f1.2, but they don't get used nearly as much as the 24-70 f2.8 -- that is a workhorse along side the 70-200mm f2.8.

For under 200 dollars, an f2.8 lens is a bargain if it is decently sharp.

 

[Lee Jay]

When did f2.8 become slow?

When you could get f/2.8 zooms.

I only buy primes for one of two things (and I have four of them) - speed or focal lengths unavailable in any zoom. This lens meets neither criteria.

I don't like small lenses - they give you no place to hold the camera. I like holding my camera with my left hand under the lens. My 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 were too small. My 35/1.4L is borderline but okay.

 

[BXL]

Photographers who need f/1.4 lenses to suit their shooting style will have to do what they've always done, pay the necessary dollars for those sweet, premium L primes.

Even though I tend to agree with your comment, I like to point out that both the 28mm f/1.8 USM and the 50mm f/1.4 USM are cheaper than the new F/2.8 IS USM primes and I can't believe that adding an image stabilizer can be so expensive.

On the other side, the build quality of the pancake looks much nicer than the nifty fifty, thus trading aperture for build quality might be ok for most people.

 

[missitnoonan]

I don't understand why people think the EF system would be suitable for a mirrorless camera. The flange back distance is huge compared to Sony's E Mount or micro 4/3. And as traveller said that equals a thick non pocketable camera and I've already got one of those (my T1i).

I'm really disappointed in the direction Canon seems to be taking with non-L primes. Can't we just have ring USM updates of the 35 f/2, the 50 f1.8 and the like? No, we've got to add IS to slower, short focal length primes and jack the price to $800.

Again, I guess if someone wants a tiny lens for FF the 40mm makes some sense, but for crop? No thanks.

 

[BXL]

When did f2.8 become slow?

When you could get f/2.8 zooms.

Most zooms never have the image quality of a prime. There a many situations, where I would trade the flexibility of a zoom, like the 17-50/55mm or the 24-70mm, for the image quality of a prime. A prime that is sharp open is better than a zoom, where you have to stop down a stop or two to get the desired image quality.

 

[Inwardlens]

I don't like small lenses - they give you no place to hold the camera. I like holding my camera with my left hand under the lens. My 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 were too small. My 35/1.4L is borderline but okay.

Now this is a real reason to dislike this lens.

I do still think that for the price this would be a nice lens to throw into the camera bag as a backup in case something catastrophic happens in during a job. If Canon does actually announce a mirrorless body, this lens may pair well.

 

[pulsiv]

I have no doubts, this thingy will sell like bread... Its cheap... and its focal length is rather unusual for a canon lens. thats what will encourage most people to buy it. there is no real reason (exept the obvious one: size), to buy this one... since there is a 35 f2 and a 50 1.8 ... but people will buy that new toy... simply because it is the new toy... and because its so cheap, they will think it won't hurt to try it...

it won't be a great lens... but it is in fact a great idea by canon. not meeting demands, but creating them.

 

[preppyak]

As far as this lens goes, it is a very smart move by Canon in that it allows DSLR owners to carry a much more compact kit on their walking about forays, it affords newbies low cost entree into the land of the oft vaunted prime lens, and gives Canon breathing room while they finish up their mirrorless offering.

Comparing this, with theoretical dimensions, to the 35mm f/2, at most it will save a few oz's and about a 3/4" in lens length. The 35 f/2 is 1.7" long and weighs 7oz, the 50 f/1.8 is 1.5" long and weights 4.5oz, and the 28mm f/2,8 is in between those at 1.6" and 6oz. So Canon already has 3 lenses around that focal length that are light and small. And one that gathers an extra stop of light at a cheaper price.

Always good to have options, but, it's not like this pancake is solving a problem Canon had. A DSLR in general is not "pocketable" like a mirrorless with pancake could be; and no lens will make it that way. And few, if any, of Canon's cheap primes way more than 1/2lb, so weight was never an issue either. Not for a 2+lb DSLR at least

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Pentax made the first pancake lens, I think. Olympus had a 40/2, which I bought for my OM-4T. I tried putting camera-cum-lens in the inner pocket of a suit jacket, but it was a bit too thick to fit.

Pancake lenses "make sense" only on small camera bodies. Ergo, Canon must be planning a compact, mirrorless camera. I agree that f/2.8 is "skimpy", especially when you're trying to reduce the depth of field.