Looking for an upgrade to my shorty 40 (indoor/general lens)

[Sneakers]

While not knowing your financial situation, I can recommend keeping the 40mm.

That sounds like good advice to me. As an aside, some folks in this thread helped me to see that the 40mm is actually very sharp, and I've grown a new appreciation for the lens over the past couple weeks. Forced myself to take it out into the sunlight and take some stopped down shots. Looks great.

Still wanted the 35 IS for indoor use.

 

[Sporgon]

While not knowing your financial situation, I can recommend keeping the 40mm.

That sounds like good advice to me. As an aside, some folks in this thread helped me to see that the 40mm is actually very sharp, and I've grown a new appreciation for the lens over the past couple weeks. Forced myself to take it out into the sunlight and take some stopped down shots. Looks great.

Still wanted the 35 IS for indoor use.

Good to hear that you're finding out how good the 40 is. The IS of the 35 plus its excellent sharpness across the frame would make it good for in door - as that it when you do require corner sharpness.

A few have mentioned the 28/1.8. This may not be suitable for your needs; it is very much an 'art' lens ( pinching Sigmas title) and although razor sharp in the centre it really falls off mid frame. Even stopped down to f8 it can't match say the 24-105 mid frame. However if you want to shoot wide angle shallow depth of field, dreamy type shots it is excellent.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I shoot on a t4i and currently own just two lenses - the Canon 85 1.8, and the Canon 40 2.8. I generally use the 85 outdoors and the 40 indoors, and that works pretty well for me.

The quality difference between my two lenses is pretty big though. The bokeh on my 85 is awesome, and it's also super sharp. I know this is a little biased because I generally use it in better lighting conditions, but I think it's objectively a much better lens. I'd like to get something just as good for my indoor uses (parties, pictures of my 1 year old, etc).

One option would be the Sigma 35mm 1.4, which is at the very top of the price range I could consider ($900). Coming in a little less would be the Canon 35mm 2.0. Would I notice enough of a quality upgrade going from the 40 to the 35? Anything else I should be considering?

Thanks.

As many have said, 35mm f/2IS is super sharp, focus very fast and it has very accurate AF, even in low light. I replaced my 40mm f/2.8 that was very sharp but the 35mm f/2IS is sharper and faster. I use it a lot for street photography to group pictures. 35mm(A) 1.4 due to its larger aperture is by many better but, I personally prefer the ability to shoot at 1/5s and still get sharp pictures.

 

[funkboy]

I can recommend keeping the 40mm. It works well as compact body cap that still has your camera in a ready-condition. Additionally, you may always find situations where you don't want to risk your nice 35mm to the elements you're shooting in. It's a cheap investment that you've already made.

Agree completely. The 40mm f/2.8 pancake "lives" on my 6D. Small, light, & minimum risk.

Another really fantastic little lens that I use a lot is the Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 pancake. A little "kit" I often carry instead of my 24-105L (which has the "shorted ribbon cable" problem, awaiting repair) consists of the 20mm Voigt, 40mm pancake, and the 85mm f/1.8 USM. The 20/40/85 lengths complement eachother well. Any two of them will fit comfortably into a grey Canon "LP1219" lens bag. I have another lens bag that I use for accessories (handy to be able to take the two of them out quickly at security checkpoints too). I just chuck the two of them & the 6D in a neoprene case (usually with the 40mm mounted) into whatever bag or backpack I'm carrying at the time & go.

BTW the diminutive 270EX II also fits into the category of small/light/cheap; I consider it a must-have if you've got a camera with no flash like my 6D. I keep it loaded with lithium batteries as they last forever & don't fade.

 

[Emil]

A few have mentioned the 28/1.8. This may not be suitable for your needs; it is very much an 'art' lens ( pinching Sigmas title) and although razor sharp in the centre it really falls off mid frame. Even stopped down to f8 it can't match say the 24-105 mid frame. However if you want to shoot wide angle shallow depth of field, dreamy type shots it is excellent.

While I do agree with you, in my experience, the lack of corner sharpness is much less noticeable when using the 28mm f1.8 with a APS-C sensor.

 

[Sporgon]

A few have mentioned the 28/1.8. This may not be suitable for your needs; it is very much an 'art' lens ( pinching Sigmas title) and although razor sharp in the centre it really falls off mid frame. Even stopped down to f8 it can't match say the 24-105 mid frame. However if you want to shoot wide angle shallow depth of field, dreamy type shots it is excellent.

While I do agree with you, in my experience, the lack of corner sharpness is much less noticeable when using the 28mm f1.8 with a APS-C sensor.

I agree, it is less noticeable on crop when stopped down a little, but it still does very much effect the edges of the frame, and when compared with lenses such as the 40 or 35IS there is no comparison.

Actually on FF the 28/1.8 does actually recover at the edge of the frame to a much more reasonable level which is quite weird.

I think the 28/1.8 is a great lens to have for specialist, 'creative' types of photography, and is totally misunderstood by the reviewers who do a very good job of making sure it goes nice 'n cheap on the used market

So as with lenses such as the 70-300 DO the moral of the story is don't buy a new one !

 

[bereninga]

I also have the shorty 40 and have contemplated getting a 35mm, but have yet to really pull the trigger. I really do appreciate the size of the pancake lens and am pretty impressed w/ the IQ of something I got for less than $100 (refurbished sale). I think for APS-C, I would actually recommend the 24mm f/2.8 IS for indoors because of the wider angle. It's a great lens that gets the equiv of nearly 35mm focal length of FF. It was impressively sharp on my t3i.

But for FF, the 40mm on a 6D is pretty spectacular.

 

[Ripley]

Check out the 35mm f2 IS versus the 40mm at f2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=824&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

And the 35mm f2 IS versus the 24-70mm II at f2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=824&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

As Juan Pablo would say... "I'm liking this!" ;D