Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017 [CR3]

[ahsanford]

Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point?

For a common max aperture, primes are smaller, lighter, and (almost always) sharper than zooms.

- A

One prime might be smaller and lighter but a bag full of primes will not be. And people in general are really too caught up with sharpness: Most never print or display big enough to notice the difference. If you just want to look at pixel level sharpness at 200% then knock yourself out with a bag full of slow primes...

I didn't say you should replace your zoom with a bag of primes. Use one and move your feet.

"People in general are really too caught up with sharpness" = your priorities are what's the world's priorities should be. That's selfish and myopic. I could argue "people in general don't like to move their feet" or "people in general don't like a challenge" in a similar manner, but that does everyone's differing needs a disservice.

There is a time for a zoom and there is a time for a prime. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But I am saying primes offer more to photographers than having faster max aperture than a zoom.

- A

 

[ecka]

Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point?

For a common max aperture, primes are smaller, lighter, and (almost always) sharper than zooms.

- A

One prime might be smaller and lighter but a bag full of primes will not be. And people in general are really too caught up with sharpness: Most never print or display big enough to notice the difference. If you just want to look at pixel level sharpness at 200% then knock yourself out with a bag full of slow primes...

What's heavier? - 5kg of primes or 5kg of zooms?
Now, what's heavier to actually shoot with? - F2.8 pancake or some kind of a decent and light(-ish) zoom kit-lens?
Because of the extra sharpness and resolution, primes offer a much better cropability, so my 40STM pancake can easily act like 40-80mm f/2.8-5.6 and I really enjoy using it for stitching landscapes.
IMHO, zooming over 100% is pointless, but not only most people never print or display big enough, most people just don't use (or need) real cameras. Therefore they shouldn't be telling other people how to shoot.

 

[Talys]

Maybe M means grab-the-ring Manual Focus!

If canon made an always-on MF override, STM, 35mm/2.8 IS for $200 or less with the sort of IQ you expect from canon primes, I'd buy it without thinking twice.

 

[Talys]

IMHO, zooming over 100% is pointless, but not only most people never print or display big enough, most people just don't use (or need) real cameras. Therefore they shouldn't be telling other people how to shoot.

I don't get it. If an eagle is nesting or in flight, how do I photograph it at 100% zoom without being Doctor Strange? If a cougar is 100 ft away from me in the snow, how do I photograph her without getting eaten? And if my subject is an inch and a half tall miniature and I want to fill printed page of it in all its glory, how do I capture it without magnification?

Yeah, if all you want to do is take selfies or facebook photos of drunk friends in a pub, whatever. But for people who want to enjoy photography, getting a camera that gives them lots of control is just a thing, whether they take great pictures or not. What's important is that the enjoy whatever they're doing.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I was really hoping for something more exciting(at least for me), a 10mm, 15mm or something like that.
This is one of the most boring and uninteresting lenses Canon could release. We have already a 28mm 1.8, 28mm 28, 35mm F2, 35mm 1.4, 40mm 2.8. Why another 35mm?

At least hope that M letter brings something unique.

 

[ecka]

IMHO, zooming over 100% is pointless, but not only most people never print or display big enough, most people just don't use (or need) real cameras. Therefore they shouldn't be telling other people how to shoot.

I don't get it. If an eagle is nesting or in flight, how do I photograph it at 100% zoom without being Doctor Strange? If a cougar is 100 ft away from me in the snow, how do I photograph her without getting eaten? And if my subject is an inch and a half tall miniature and I want to fill printed page of it in all its glory, how do I capture it without magnification?

Yeah, if all you want to do is take selfies or facebook photos of drunk friends in a pub, whatever. But for people who want to enjoy photography, getting a camera that gives them lots of control is just a thing, whether they take great pictures or not. What's important is that the enjoy whatever they're doing.

Sure, for each his own. Smartphones can shoot decent selfies for facebook. I'm just saying that those people have no right to preach things like "small facebook pics are all you need" or that "pixel-peeping is a mortal sin".
And by zooming over 100% I meant "pixel-peeping" at such crazy magnification levels. There is no extra information past 100%.
Now about those eagles and cougars ... , I think that hardly a small kit-lens would be of any help in those situations.

 

[ecka]

I was really hoping for something more exciting(at least for me), a 10mm, 15mm or something like that.
This is one of the most boring and uninteresting lenses Canon could release. We have already a 28mm 1.8, 28mm 28, 35mm F2, 35mm 1.4, 40mm 2.8. Why another 35mm?

At least hope that M letter brings something unique.

Honestly, I think your suggested current 5-lens 28-40mm coverage is already an overkill. Three is plenty

 

[picture-maker]

When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.

I do miss that lens.

I’ve got a Sony smart phone that I’ve had since 2012 (it’s 3G). It’s an Xperia T and has an f2.4 lens and 13.2mp camera. The pictures it takes are nothing short of excellent.

I’ve measured the angle of view against a zoom and as far as I can tell, it’s the equivalent of a 35mm lens on full frame dSLR.

I’ve had 2 Sony smart phones since the Xperia T, and currently an iPhone SE. The cameras on the smart phones since the Sony Xperia T have all had lenses with a wider angle lens than the Xperia T. And I noticed that I had stopped taking as many picture with my smart phone, and the iPhone SE doesn’t give me as much control either. So I have been carrying the Xperia T everywhere and taking pictures on that instead an in particular instead of the iPhone.

The drawback with the F4S was size and weigh and no built in flash. Not a big deal with such a great camera.

The drawback with my current EOS 80D is that I can’t currently get the lens I want. Canon do make the lens I want. However, it isn’t compatible with my camera.

If Canon were to make something to allow me to fit lens I want to my EOS 80D, I would be absolutely delighted.

So do I wait patiently for Canon to make an adapter for EF-M to EF-S, or an EF-S 22mm f2.

An EF 35mm f2 and EOS 6D is a big outlay to get a lens. I dare say the size is not that much bigger than the EOS 80D, but it does have the drawback of no built in flash. And a new model is expected out soon.

So do I go Fuji? The Fuji X100F looks really interesting and could probably replace the Xperia T smart phoned. But it’s not an SLR!

 

[slclick]

When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.

I do miss that lens.

I’ve got a Sony smart phone that I’ve had since 2012 (it’s 3G). It’s an Xperia T and has an f2.4 lens and 13.2mp camera. The pictures it takes are nothing short of excellent.

I’ve measured the angle of view against a zoom and as far as I can tell, it’s the equivalent of a 35mm lens on full frame dSLR.

I’ve had 2 Sony smart phones since the Xperia T, and currently an iPhone SE. The cameras on the smart phones since the Sony Xperia T have all had lenses with a wider angle lens than the Xperia T. And I noticed that I had stopped taking as many picture with my smart phone, and the iPhone SE doesn’t give me as much control either. So I have been carrying the Xperia T everywhere and taking pictures on that instead an in particular instead of the iPhone.

The drawback with the F4S was size and weigh and no built in flash. Not a big deal with such a great camera.

The drawback with my current EOS 80D is that I can’t currently get the lens I want. Canon do make the lens I want. However, it isn’t compatible with my camera.

If Canon were to make something to allow me to fit lens I want to my EOS 80D, I would be absolutely delighted.

So do I wait patiently for Canon to make an adapter for EF-M to EF-S, or an EF-S 22mm f2.

An EF 35mm f2 and EOS 6D is a big outlay to get a lens. I dare say the size is not that much bigger than the EOS 80D, but it does have the drawback of no built in flash. And a new model is expected out soon.

So do I go Fuji? The Fuji X100F looks really interesting and could probably replace the Xperia T smart phoned. But it’s not an SLR!

I look at buying something like the X100F as getting a new 35mm lens that I can take to discreet venues, walk around anywhere camera , an alternative to lugging the 5D+ glass, fun with film simulation and just experiencing a different format and shooting style.

It's not really all that more expensive than a nice Canon lens, so the money isn't the issue ($1399 for one focal length they say!) and it breaks up the monotony of the DSLR gear thing. It forces a sort of creativity I miss, not unlike a first year photo student told to use only the 50mm type of train of thought. It's a good thing.

 

[ecka]

When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.

I do miss that lens.

I’ve got a Sony smart phone that I’ve had since 2012 (it’s 3G). It’s an Xperia T and has an f2.4 lens and 13.2mp camera. The pictures it takes are nothing short of excellent.

I’ve measured the angle of view against a zoom and as far as I can tell, it’s the equivalent of a 35mm lens on full frame dSLR.

I’ve had 2 Sony smart phones since the Xperia T, and currently an iPhone SE. The cameras on the smart phones since the Sony Xperia T have all had lenses with a wider angle lens than the Xperia T. And I noticed that I had stopped taking as many picture with my smart phone, and the iPhone SE doesn’t give me as much control either. So I have been carrying the Xperia T everywhere and taking pictures on that instead an in particular instead of the iPhone.

The drawback with the F4S was size and weigh and no built in flash. Not a big deal with such a great camera.

The drawback with my current EOS 80D is that I can’t currently get the lens I want. Canon do make the lens I want. However, it isn’t compatible with my camera.

If Canon were to make something to allow me to fit lens I want to my EOS 80D, I would be absolutely delighted.

So do I wait patiently for Canon to make an adapter for EF-M to EF-S, or an EF-S 22mm f2.

An EF 35mm f2 and EOS 6D is a big outlay to get a lens. I dare say the size is not that much bigger than the EOS 80D, but it does have the drawback of no built in flash. And a new model is expected out soon.

So do I go Fuji? The Fuji X100F looks really interesting and could probably replace the Xperia T smart phoned. But it’s not an SLR!

I look at buying something like the X100F as getting a new 35mm lens that I can take to discreet venues, walk around anywhere camera , an alternative to lugging the 5D+ glass, fun with film simulation and just experiencing a different format and shooting style.

It's not really all that more expensive than a nice Canon lens, so the money isn't the issue ($1399 for one focal length they say!) and it breaks up the monotony of the DSLR gear thing. It forces a sort of creativity I miss, not unlike a first year photo student told to use only the 50mm type of train of thought. It's a good thing.

For the price, I'd prefer 6D with 40/2.8 (or 50/1.8 ) over X100F. Simply because 6D provides similar (or better) field of view and DoF control, but with much better battery life, image quality and overall value (being a full-fledged FF DSLR with a vast EF lens family). Putting expensive cameras in my pockets is not exactly my definition of photography.
If money was no issue, then maybe I would get a Sony RX1R II, but most likely I'd just skip the "hipster miniaturism" and use the A7RII instead.

 

[ecka]

The more I think about it, unless M stands for some device that acts exactly opposite a 2x Tc turning the 35/2.8 into a 17/1.4, I don't care what M stands for.

So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.

I think the M stands for "FacepalM". Not as an abbreviation, but as a representation of the sound you make while doing it.

 

[Talys]

So what ten years, or is it more?, after Nikon gave their users a cheap $200 35/1.8, Canon responds with a lens that lets in 2.5 times less light.

But the Nikon 35/1.8 has no image stabilization, or am I mistaken? I'm not really that up to speed on Nikon lenses.

I think there are some who would take 2.8 IS over 1.8 no IS. Personally, I would, if I had to choose (especially after I agonized over 24-70, and ultimately bought f/4IS). I quite like 2.8 -- I think it finds a nice place between capturing enough depth of field and isolating the subject, and of course, all the IQ and light in the world is worth nothing if the image is blurry.

The thing is you can already get 2.8 stabilized with Canon because they have an excellent 17-55 zoom and the Sigma 17-50 is also excellent for half the cost of the 17-55. From there why buy a stack of slow 2.8 primes (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 40/2.8) to do what the one zoom can do for you and more? Prime's need to offer more aperture or what is the point? I guess if you are happy with 5.6 zooms to compliment 2.8 primes, but when you talk equivalent apertures on crop, you are really talking about 9.0 zooms complimenting 4.5 primes and how many f4 primes have you seen in the full frame world that were not UWA 17mm or supper tele 500 and plus?

I own a 17-55 2.8. It is a wonderful lens, but there are a couple of issues. First, it's not terribly good at 2.8, especially with CA, at nearly every focal length. It isn't really great until it is stepped down to f4 or slower. At no part of its focal range or aperture setting comparable to 50STM or EF24-70/4 (at any setting).

The second problem with 17-55 is AF. It was great 12 years ago, buy now it's a kludge (as are some other, otherwise great lens like 50/1.4) compared with STM nano USM, or ring USM on newer L lens. It's way too noisy for video, and the focus hunt is not worthy of a nearly $1k lens.

That brings us to the last issue -- price. It costs a lot, and is 77mm (meaning pricy filters). In fact, I think it costs more now than when I bought mine 10years ago. Back then, it was absolutely worth it, and it remains a useful tool today, but no way I'd pay that now (I would buy 24-70).

If 35/2.8 gives good IQ at 2.8 -- like the 50 1.8 does -- it becomes a cheap and light prime.
exciting? Not really. But useful? For some, sure.

 

[slclick]

When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.

I do miss that lens.

I’ve got a Sony smart phone that I’ve had since 2012 (it’s 3G). It’s an Xperia T and has an f2.4 lens and 13.2mp camera. The pictures it takes are nothing short of excellent.

I’ve measured the angle of view against a zoom and as far as I can tell, it’s the equivalent of a 35mm lens on full frame dSLR.

I’ve had 2 Sony smart phones since the Xperia T, and currently an iPhone SE. The cameras on the smart phones since the Sony Xperia T have all had lenses with a wider angle lens than the Xperia T. And I noticed that I had stopped taking as many picture with my smart phone, and the iPhone SE doesn’t give me as much control either. So I have been carrying the Xperia T everywhere and taking pictures on that instead an in particular instead of the iPhone.

The drawback with the F4S was size and weigh and no built in flash. Not a big deal with such a great camera.

The drawback with my current EOS 80D is that I can’t currently get the lens I want. Canon do make the lens I want. However, it isn’t compatible with my camera.

If Canon were to make something to allow me to fit lens I want to my EOS 80D, I would be absolutely delighted.

So do I wait patiently for Canon to make an adapter for EF-M to EF-S, or an EF-S 22mm f2.

An EF 35mm f2 and EOS 6D is a big outlay to get a lens. I dare say the size is not that much bigger than the EOS 80D, but it does have the drawback of no built in flash. And a new model is expected out soon.

So do I go Fuji? The Fuji X100F looks really interesting and could probably replace the Xperia T smart phoned. But it’s not an SLR!

I look at buying something like the X100F as getting a new 35mm lens that I can take to discreet venues, walk around anywhere camera , an alternative to lugging the 5D+ glass, fun with film simulation and just experiencing a different format and shooting style.

It's not really all that more expensive than a nice Canon lens, so the money isn't the issue ($1399 for one focal length they say!) and it breaks up the monotony of the DSLR gear thing. It forces a sort of creativity I miss, not unlike a first year photo student told to use only the 50mm type of train of thought. It's a good thing.

For the price, I'd prefer 6D with 40/2.8 (or 50/1.8 ) over X100F. Simply because 6D provides similar (or better) field of view and DoF control, but with much better battery life, image quality and overall value (being a full-fledged FF DSLR with a vast EF lens family). Putting expensive cameras in my pockets is not exactly my definition of photography.
If money was no issue, then maybe I would get a Sony RX1R II, but most likely I'd just skip the "hipster miniaturism" and use the A7RII instead.

I don't wear cargo shorts or pants so nothing was said about pockets.
I do see what you are saying about a 6D in terms of a size or weight reduction over a 5D3 but it's still too close for me. If I'm getting a second camera, it's not to buy into another lens eco system or to make a similar choice, I want something different, unique, easy going and enjoyable. I don't give a shit if I'm seen with it or not, the hipster factor with these things is annoying. I'm not trying to pass it off as a Leica or whatnot. It just seems to be a solid shooter.

Then give me the 6D2 with a flippy and I'll have my trinity.

 

[ecka]

When I had a Nikon F4S, with 4 prime lenses and 2 zooms. I ended up using the 28-135mm zoom and 35mm f2 as my main kit. Or the F4S and only the 35mm f2. For about half of all the pictures taken, I used the 35mm f2.

I do miss that lens.

I’ve got a Sony smart phone that I’ve had since 2012 (it’s 3G). It’s an Xperia T and has an f2.4 lens and 13.2mp camera. The pictures it takes are nothing short of excellent.

I’ve measured the angle of view against a zoom and as far as I can tell, it’s the equivalent of a 35mm lens on full frame dSLR.

I’ve had 2 Sony smart phones since the Xperia T, and currently an iPhone SE. The cameras on the smart phones since the Sony Xperia T have all had lenses with a wider angle lens than the Xperia T. And I noticed that I had stopped taking as many picture with my smart phone, and the iPhone SE doesn’t give me as much control either. So I have been carrying the Xperia T everywhere and taking pictures on that instead an in particular instead of the iPhone.

The drawback with the F4S was size and weigh and no built in flash. Not a big deal with such a great camera.

The drawback with my current EOS 80D is that I can’t currently get the lens I want. Canon do make the lens I want. However, it isn’t compatible with my camera.

If Canon were to make something to allow me to fit lens I want to my EOS 80D, I would be absolutely delighted.

So do I wait patiently for Canon to make an adapter for EF-M to EF-S, or an EF-S 22mm f2.

An EF 35mm f2 and EOS 6D is a big outlay to get a lens. I dare say the size is not that much bigger than the EOS 80D, but it does have the drawback of no built in flash. And a new model is expected out soon.

So do I go Fuji? The Fuji X100F looks really interesting and could probably replace the Xperia T smart phoned. But it’s not an SLR!

I look at buying something like the X100F as getting a new 35mm lens that I can take to discreet venues, walk around anywhere camera , an alternative to lugging the 5D+ glass, fun with film simulation and just experiencing a different format and shooting style.

It's not really all that more expensive than a nice Canon lens, so the money isn't the issue ($1399 for one focal length they say!) and it breaks up the monotony of the DSLR gear thing. It forces a sort of creativity I miss, not unlike a first year photo student told to use only the 50mm type of train of thought. It's a good thing.

For the price, I'd prefer 6D with 40/2.8 (or 50/1.8 ) over X100F. Simply because 6D provides similar (or better) field of view and DoF control, but with much better battery life, image quality and overall value (being a full-fledged FF DSLR with a vast EF lens family). Putting expensive cameras in my pockets is not exactly my definition of photography.
If money was no issue, then maybe I would get a Sony RX1R II, but most likely I'd just skip the "hipster miniaturism" and use the A7RII instead.

I don't wear cargo shorts or pants so nothing was said about pockets.
I do see what you are saying about a 6D in terms of a size or weight reduction over a 5D3 but it's still too close for me. If I'm getting a second camera, it's not to buy into another lens eco system or to make a similar choice, I want something different, unique, easy going and enjoyable. I don't give a S___ if I'm seen with it or not, the hipster factor with these things is annoying. I'm not trying to pass it off as a Leica or whatnot. It just seems to be a solid shooter.

Then give me the 6D2 with a flippy and I'll have my trinity.

Well, ironically, cargo pants are worn mostly by those same "hipster miniaturism" advocates. I'm glad you are not in their camp . My 6D suggestion over a 5D3 is based purely on pricing. It could be Sony A7 just as well. I would love to have a 5D4 or 5DsR, but unfortunately, it is far out of my budget range, just like any unreasonably overpriced crop toys. Perhaps I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.
Yes, the hipster factor is really annoying. The quirky design, retro looks, compromised controls with all kinds of atavism, premium pricing and cargo pants . I hope we'll get that 6D2 with a flippy real soon.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

It just dawned on me. We have been talking about the focal length, aperture and possible macro. But as far as I can tell no one has mentioned the fact that its a STM lens and that STM is horrible for manual focusing. So if this is a Macro lens.. M sure as heck will mean Meh..

 

[KristinnK]

I own a 17-55 2.8. It is a wonderful lens, but there are a couple of issues. First, it's not terribly good at 2.8, especially with CA, at nearly every focal length. It isn't really great until it is stepped down to f4 or slower. At no part of its focal range or aperture setting comparable to 50STM or EF24-70/4 (at any setting).

Take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 then. Sharp as can be wide open, only slightly softer at 50mm, but back to sharp at f/3.2. It's an old lens with slow and noisy autofocus, and it doesn't have stabilization, but it only costs 300$! It was my first lens (except for the kit lens), and it's still my most used lens.

Canon could easily design a similarly sharp lens, add in stabilization and sell it for 500-600$. But they don't because they want to force more people to buy full-frame cameras and full-frame lenses. Sigma and Tamron's excellent crop lenses must be a huge thorn in Canon's side.

 

[slclick]

19 days until we find out what M is.

Could be Canon's favorite Cure song?
A nod to James Bond?

 

[FECHariot]

I didn't say you should replace your zoom with a bag of primes. Use one and move your feet.

"People in general are really too caught up with sharpness" = your priorities are what's the world's priorities should be. That's selfish and myopic. I could argue "people in general don't like to move their feet" or "people in general don't like a challenge" in a similar manner, but that does everyone's differing needs a disservice.

There is a time for a zoom and there is a time for a prime. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But I am saying primes offer more to photographers than having faster max aperture than a zoom.

- A

Sorry the foot zooming thing doesn't work. Even if you don't need to walk yourself back off a cliff or into another room, you still change the relative perspective of items in the shot and this might be very important to what you are trying to get in the shot.

Now I definitely don't claim that my needs = everyone elses, but from my needs, I don't see where a 56mm 4.5 equivalent lens is something all that great. Let's assume M does stand for macro, Canon in 1979 had a 50mm 3.5 macro lens 2/3 a stop faster than this one in equivalent terms. Nearly 40 years later they are putting out essentially slower lenses.

 

[FECHariot]

I own a 17-55 2.8. It is a wonderful lens, but there are a couple of issues. First, it's not terribly good at 2.8, especially with CA, at nearly every focal length. It isn't really great until it is stepped down to f4 or slower. At no part of its focal range or aperture setting comparable to 50STM or EF24-70/4 (at any setting).

The second problem with 17-55 is AF. It was great 12 years ago, buy now it's a kludge (as are some other, otherwise great lens like 50/1.4) compared with STM nano USM, or ring USM on newer L lens. It's way too noisy for video, and the focus hunt is not worthy of a nearly $1k lens.

That brings us to the last issue -- price. It costs a lot, and is 77mm (meaning pricy filters). In fact, I think it costs more now than when I bought mine 10years ago. Back then, it was absolutely worth it, and it remains a useful tool today, but no way I'd pay that now (I would buy 24-70).

If 35/2.8 gives good IQ at 2.8 -- like the 50 1.8 does -- it becomes a cheap and light prime.
exciting? Not really. But useful? For some, sure.

Exactly, I would rather see Canon put effort into upgrading the now getting old 17-55 than putting out a bunch of slow primes. And if they want to put out primes, great, at least make them faster than 2.8.

Like I mentioned before the $200 Nikon 35/1.8 is over ten years old and Canon has had nothing in the budget category in that focal length. I guess Canon didn't want to kill sales of the 35/2 IS so they made this one slower to differentiate it. I would rather have seen them try to one up Nikon and offer a 35/1.8 IS for EFS and compromise on build quality rather than aperture. If they build it like a 18-55's construction, then the nicer build of the current 35/2 IS would then differentiate that from this one.

 

[Luds34]

Re: Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 M IS STM Coming April 5, 2017

The EF28/1.8USM is not a landscaping lens by my standards. I'd rather shoot with my 40 pancake and stitch later, than deal with the soft edges . It's not terrible though. However, it is beautiful at close to medium distances, portraits, street, pets and stuff. The bokeh is really nice (for a wide angle lens) and it seems even sharper in those genres.

BTW, nice shots

That's a valid point and I'm in agreement. The 28mm f/1.8 is not a great landscape lens. Sure if you stop it down to f/8 it's actual okay in the corners, but there are far better choices for landscape. But to use as a "normal", fast prime on a crop sensor for shooting people/street/event (what I purchased it for) it is actually a pretty good lens. That fast aperture really allows shooting in lower light and does create some solid bokeh, something needed much more on crop then if one was shooting full frame.

I'm too lazy to stitch but I bet you get some great shots with that 40mm and using that technique. I'm still amazed such a tiny lens is so sharp.

Too kind on complimenting my shots, but thank you.