Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Quick Review

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-stm-quick-review/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-stm-quick-review/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-stm-quick-review/"></a></div>
<p><strong>From Roger at LensRentals.com

</strong>As Roger does, he received the new Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens and had to immediately put it through the paces.</p>
<p>Roger did some computer aided tests to check the sharpness at MTF 50 and compared it with other higher end Canon zoom lenses, and it turns out the little pancake outperformed them in some areas.</p>
<p><strong>Roger’s Conclusion</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Overall, though, I’m extremely impressed. I’d be impressed if a lens this size and price was just decent, but this one is excellent. I might as well go ahead and get in trouble with the business manager: if you think you want this lens, just go ahead and buy it. At this price, unless some of the more thorough reviewers find something I missed on this quick overview, you can’t go wrong.</p></blockquote>
<p>Read the entire review at LensRentals.com <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/canon-40mm-pancake-how-did-they-do-that" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM $199</strong> <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/870179-REG/Canon_40mm_f_2_8_EF_Pancake.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA4028.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00894YP00/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=canorumo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00894YP00" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.normancamera.com/index/page/product/product_id/26162/category_id/569/category_chain/10,565,569/product_name/Canon+EF+40mm+f2.8+STM+Pancake+Lens" target="_blank">Norman Camera</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[aZhu]

Ahhhhh! I hate reviews like these!!! just makes me more and more anxious to get mine!! Where art thou, oh Adorama?!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Roger's review gives the usual caveats about how there may be variability, but the samples posted here and the near-uniformity of the reviews makes me think that what Roger found is exactly what everybody else has found.

...which is good, because I'm really hoping I'll find the same thing on Wednesday of next week when my own Shorty McForty arrives from B&H!

b&

 

[JerryKnight]

Like I always say, a pessimist can only be pleasantly surprised.

I might as well go ahead and get in trouble with the business manager: if you think you want this lens, just go ahead and buy it.

$19 / week, estimated $29 shipping.. That's almost 25% of the lens price, so I don't think it's very wise to rent a lens like this, even without a good initial review like this.

 

[gmrza]

Roger's review gives the usual caveats about how there may be variability, but the samples posted here and the near-uniformity of the reviews makes me think that what Roger found is exactly what everybody else has found.

...which is good, because I'm really hoping I'll find the same thing on Wednesday of next week when my own Shorty McForty arrives from B&H!

b&

I most probably will get one. What I would like to see more information on is its performance with respect to vignetting, spherical aberration and chromatic aberration, plus the quality of the bokeh. Even if these characteristics are average, it will probably still be a good lens too buy. Given that the lens is not ultra-fast, I expect the performance in these respects will not be bad.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Please help me understand. If you don't intend to use this lens for video, is the STM really an advantage?
Also, why would you buy this lens and pay nearly twice the price for a slower lens than the 50mm f1.8?
Are the optics better? The 10mm difference is important for a small sensor camera? Significant weight
difference? Better balance with a rebel body? I find the 40mm focal length of marginal value over the 35mm.

 

[Marsu42]

0 and compared it with other higher end Canon zoom lenses, and it turns out the little pancake outperformed them in some areas.

Very interesting lens, but comparing this prime to older zoom designs that are more difficult to build like the 16-35 are even already discontinued like the 24-70i sounds a bit odd, I'd like to see the numbers of other 50mm or 35mm primes in this review, too - does anyone know these numbers?

Lens Center 20 pt
Canon 40mm f/2.8 870 775
Canon 24-70 740 610
Canon 16-35 770 635
Canon 45 TS-E 785 660
Canon 35/1.4 ?
Canon 35/2.0 ?
Canon 50/1.4 ?
Canon 50/1.8 ?

 

[Phenix205]

0 and compared it with other higher end Canon zoom lenses, and it turns out the little pancake outperformed them in some areas.

Very interesting lens, but comparing this prime to older zoom designs that are more difficult to build like the 16-35 are even already discontinued like the 24-70i sounds a bit odd, I'd like to see the numbers of other 50mm or 35mm primes in this review, too - does anyone know these numbers?

Lens Center 20 pt
Canon 40mm f/2.8 870 775
Canon 24-70 740 610
Canon 16-35 770 635
Canon 45 TS-E 785 660
Canon 35/1.4 ?
Canon 35/2.0 ?
Canon 50/1.4 ?
Canon 50/1.8 ?

Should add another column called price. Expecting a $200 pancake to outperform other way more expensive lenses especially L primes is a little unrealistic. The comparison should also be conducted at the same aperture. The primes you listed should become much sharper when stopped down to 2.8. Roger said it very clearly that the L zooms were sharper when the lenses were stopped down.

 

[Marsu42]

Roger said it very clearly that the L zooms were sharper when the lenses were stopped down.

I didn't want to criticize the 40mm lens, I just noticed if a review that the comparison table was a bit biased - imho if you do a table, do it fully with all specs. Esp. other budget primes like the 50/1.8 should be put into it, that's all.

 

[wickidwombat]

any chance you can get roger to throw an IR filter on that puppy and do a 3min exposure of a park and trees to see if there are any hot spots issues?

 

[crasher8]

Easy

Perfect street rig for film on my Elan 7 and nice body cap for a 2nd body in my digital bag.

 

[pwp]

The Shorty McForty review thread had started at Fred Miranda Reviews.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=434

The first reviewer loves it, but rates STM as inferior to USM.

PW

 

[Wideopen]

Cant wait for fedex to deliver mines tomorrow

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Please help me understand. If you don't intend to use this lens for video, is the STM really an advantage?

Not sure, but the reviews say it's quite quiet and very accurate and, though not a speed daemon, not annoyingly slow either. All in all, it sounds like a win, especially for something this cheap and small.

Also, why would you buy this lens and pay nearly twice the price for a slower lens than the 50mm f1.8?

Because it basically turns a 5D into everything I'd ever want in a mirrorless camera, something far superior to the Leica X2 / Fuji X100.

Are the optics better?

By all accounts, the Shorty McForty is optically on a par with, if not actually superior to, the 24-70. You're basically getting good L glass in a package that's the size of a body cap and cheaper than a good circular polarizer.

The 10mm difference is important for a small sensor camera?

I don't think 64mm equivalent field of view is a very interesting perspective. I'm very excited about the field of view on full frame...42mm is the textbook normal focal length for the 135 format, and 40mm is close enough to that as makes no difference.

Significant weight
difference? Better balance with a rebel body?

Again, no clue what this'll be like on those dinky little APS-C toys. To repeat, I see the Shorty McForty mounted to my 5DIII as a Leica X2 killer. As in, stomp all over, kill crush destroy, mop the floor with Leica X2 killer.

I find the 40mm focal length of marginal value over the 35mm.

I like 35 more than I like 50, but 35 does start to feel wide. I have a very strong hunch that I am going to very much like what the 40 feels like.

But I'll find out for sure this coming Wednesday....

Cheers,

b&

 

[WoodysGamertag]

Again, no clue what this'll be like on those dinky little APS-C toys. To repeat, I see the Shorty McForty mounted to my 5DIII as a Leica X2 killer. As in, stomp all over, kill crush destroy, mop the floor with Leica X2 killer.

Wow, you're such a manly electronics purchaser. Grrrrr.

 

[sparda79]

Please help me understand. If you don't intend to use this lens for video, is the STM really an advantage?

Not sure, but the reviews say it's quite quiet and very accurate and, though not a speed daemon, not annoyingly slow either. All in all, it sounds like a win, especially for something this cheap and small.

Also, why would you buy this lens and pay nearly twice the price for a slower lens than the 50mm f1.8?

Because it basically turns a 5D into everything I'd ever want in a mirrorless camera, something far superior to the Leica X2 / Fuji X100.

Are the optics better?

By all accounts, the Shorty McForty is optically on a par with, if not actually superior to, the 24-70. You're basically getting good L glass in a package that's the size of a body cap and cheaper than a good circular polarizer.

The 10mm difference is important for a small sensor camera?

I don't think 64mm equivalent field of view is a very interesting perspective. I'm very excited about the field of view on full frame...42mm is the textbook normal focal length for the 135 format, and 40mm is close enough to that as makes no difference.

Significant weight
difference? Better balance with a rebel body?

Again, no clue what this'll be like on those dinky little APS-C toys. To repeat, I see the Shorty McForty mounted to my 5DIII as a Leica X2 killer. As in, stomp all over, kill crush destroy, mop the floor with Leica X2 killer.

I find the 40mm focal length of marginal value over the 35mm.

I like 35 more than I like 50, but 35 does start to feel wide. I have a very strong hunch that I am going to very much like what the 40 feels like.

But I'll find out for sure this coming Wednesday....

Cheers,

b&

You're starting to convince me that I need this lens...

 

[Hector1970]

My first impressions are that it is quite a good lens. It's sharp, it has nice bokeh. It's quite solid in build. I thought actually it might be smaller but it is small I suppose. It feels heaving that the 50mm 1.8. I couldn't tell the difference between STM and USM. I see someone earlier saying that someone thought it wasn't as good as USM. I'm not sure how they could judge that. I was concerned about the STM as my camera is the 500D and can't use it's function in video and that it might not be as good as USM. I've found no issues with it at all to worry me. It focuses quickly and I haven't found it hunting (as least in reasonable light).
It's an odd size on an APS-C sensor (64mm). I think it's better suited to a Full Frame.
It will force me to move around a bit. Is it as sharp as an L lens - it probably isn't (I'm sure tests will show whether or which) - but it does seem quite sharp to me. It's certainly sharper than a 28mm 1.8 (which isn't well know for sharpness). The most common lens I use is the 24-105mm F4 L and I don't think it's much less sharp than that.
I'm glad I bought it. I think it's size is quite handy for bringing around and it makes the camera more discreet.
I have a few examples on www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan , the dog is without any adjustment if you were curious on sharpness (which also may be limited by the camera and the photographer!)

 

[Astro]

this lens might be good as it gets... problem is i have no need for a relativ slow 40mm lens.

i have a 50 mm f1.4 and a 35 mm f2.

i would drool a while over having a new lens and then it would lay around and be used 2-3 times a year.

 

[infared]

I am going to take the $200 that I could spend on this lens (as it is tempting to fill the void as I wait) and put that money toward my new, uber-expensive 24-70mm f/2.8 II...WHENEVER that may arrive on the shelves. This summer some time, I hope!
Looks like a great fun little lens and at that price...it will sell like hot cakes (or is that pancakes?).

 

[Marsu42]

It feels heaving that the 50mm 1.8. I couldn't tell the difference between STM and USM. I see someone earlier saying that someone thought it wasn't as good as USM. I'm not sure how they could judge that.and the photographer!)

I don't know if you were implying that - but the Canon 50/1.8 doesn't have usm, but an extremely noisy & slow 80s-style af motor without ftm. It cannot get worse than that, so considering the crappy build quality of the 50mm only the iq is left - and here, it would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of the 40/2.8 and 50/1.8 at various apertures. Both are small and cheapish, esp. the 50/1.8 at only $100 - the lens hood is nearly as expensive as the lens