Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

[JVLphoto]

Not sure I understand the people complaining about this review. Since when have the reviews here been anything more than personal, real-world usage? That's what's good about them. If you want the technical, $1000 worth of software and optic-testing equipment reviews, you know where to go to get that.

I thought it was a good review, and provided some real-world perspective. If I had to complain, and this isn't a complaint so much as a question, why didn't you use it for some short videos. I mean, isn't this lens primarily aimed at DSLR video use over still photo?

I would totally buy this lens over the nifty-50 based on the tighter build quality alone, not to mention the focusing system.

Thank you! I was about to punch myself in the face.

Why no video? I don't actually shoot video with it - though I did have a discussion about it with some friends recently. If you're fixed focus everything about this makes sense, though anyone serious about video may need some level of manual focus ability and the very tiny MF ring at the front doesn't make this easy, or accurate. There's also no distance indicator for MF... so really it's great for video if you use the built-in AF (few people I know do) or if your focus is fixed.

Still, sharp lens, light weight, there's advantages to that.

 

[JVLphoto]

Guys don't be too hard on the reviewer. Like any review it is but one man' opinion and personal criteria. I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.

I had Cps upgrade my firmware the day I bout it.

I think you make a good point. Not everyone needs or wants optical quality, and some people absolutely require it. I was very impressed with the quality of the images I took with the lens - but I only took photos with this lens when I was in more social environments, leaving it behind on assignment with a few exceptions when I forced myself to use it specifically for the review. 50 1.8 = bokeh and shallow dof 40 2.8 = image quality, both are small, affordable and pocketable. Heck, maybe people should buy both!

 

[Sporgon]

.
From a magazine editor's standpoint, this is pretty blah with uninspiring images. Very little useful information.

Roger, at LensRentals said all that needs to be said in four sentences:

"This is really an amazing lens. Little pancakes are cute and all, but usually aren’t of very good image quality. This one has exceptional image quality and does it at an amazing price. Probably the best bargain of a prime lens that exists, anywhere, for anything."

+1

I don't think the reviewer's conclusion has done this lens justice. The innuendo is that this lens is 'quite good for the money', and this is misleading - it's very good in it's own right irrespective of cost. The centre is as good as the 50 1.4 at f2.8, from f4 to f11 it has superb across-the-frame sharpness, and it is a modern 'for digital' lens which controls the digital clipping to highlight' better than made for film lenses IMO

 

[drmikeinpdx]

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7114.180

Here are some photos I took with the pancake on my 5D3 recently.

I tried it on my T2i for street photography (my first attempt at street work) and was not too happy with that combo. I missed my stabilized kit lens. However on the 5D3, it really shines. I was using the camera on auto ISO and taking advantage of the wide range of usable ISO.

 

[JVLphoto]

I don't think the reviewer's conclusion has done this lens justice. The innuendo is that this lens is 'quite good for the money', and this is misleading - it's very good in it's own right irrespective of cost. The centre is as good as the 50 1.4 at f2.8, from f4 to f11 it has superb across-the-frame sharpness, and it is a modern 'for digital' lens which controls the digital clipping to highlight' better than made for film lenses IMO

Funny, I did like using it for Pano's - but we didn't include them in the review since they're not reflective of the lens from a stand-alone POV. And you're right, hopefully people read through the forum here to see that it is a good lens, I did try to say that, though still being generally unimpressed I couldn't come out saying how great something is despite not really being able to put it to good use myself. Obviously sharpness tests and stuff are available in spades across the internet, which will never be my focus.

Thanks!

JVL

 

[caMARYnon]

I love the 40. My normal use for this lens is everyday except the weekend, I have it when I drive to or from the office. Like Trumpetpower said: looks like a high-end P&S camera .
Another excellent use is when I'm using 70-200 but I want to have something good for a relative wide image.

 

[JVLphoto]

I love the 40. My normal use for this lens is everyday except the weekend, I have it when I drive to or from the office. Like Trumpetpower said: looks like a high-end P&S camera .
Another excellent use is when I'm using 70-200 but I want to have something good for a relative wide image.

Smart kit.

 

[JVLphoto]

One thing I found easy enough to do with the lens was create pano's if I wanted to exaggerate the dof while expanding my fov. Because the nodal point of this lens is essentially on-axis to the camera, it's pretty easy to not screw up (that and software has gotten pretty good at forgiving my errors).

 

[Daniel Flather]

You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.

 

[JVLphoto]

You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.

Ha ha, I bought it *specifically* for the shoot. I wouldn't feed my kids with it, but 100% pure maple syrup is a bit expensive to go pouring over a lens for one shot

 

[TrumpetPower!]

You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.

Ha ha, I bought it *specifically* for the shoot. I wouldn't feed my kids with it, but 100% pure maple syrup is a bit expensive to go pouring over a lens for one shot

Not only that, but the cheap shit has all sorts of thickeners that make it more photogenic. Perhaps not surprisingly, they also do a good job at thickening those who eat it....

I'd do two things for that shot, though...first, I'd transfer the syrup to a small pitcher so it wasn't so obvious that it's the cheap shit...and I'd also consider using motor oil / transmission oil / Slick 50 / etc. instead of syrup.

...it would depend, of course, on whether or not the lens was intended to remain functional after the shot. I'd probably ask Canon for a warranty reject destined for the scrap heap for a donor lens, but I know there're photo shoots where nobody would bat an eye at a few hundred spent on props.

Cheers,

b&

 

[JVLphoto]

You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.

Ha ha, I bought it *specifically* for the shoot. I wouldn't feed my kids with it, but 100% pure maple syrup is a bit expensive to go pouring over a lens for one shot

Not only that, but the cheap S___ has all sorts of thickeners that make it more photogenic. Perhaps not surprisingly, they also do a good job at thickening those who eat it....

I'd do two things for that shot, though...first, I'd transfer the syrup to a small pitcher so it wasn't so obvious that it's the cheap S___...and I'd also consider using motor oil / transmission oil / Slick 50 / etc. instead of syrup.

...it would depend, of course, on whether or not the lens was intended to remain functional after the shot. I'd probably ask Canon for a warranty reject destined for the scrap heap for a donor lens, but I know there're photo shoots where nobody would bat an eye at a few hundred spent on props.

Cheers,

b&

Good points, I don't do a lot of product photos so it's learn as I go. I think cheap plastic tubs might even be more recognizable for a certain demographic, just not Canadians or people who buy expensive camera gear.

And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.

 

[dolina]

I bought the 40/2.8 for street and social gatherings. Essentially this is my go to lens if I want the lightest possible SLR setup that still has L-like image quality.

Traditional street has you stopping down to f/8 and at a focal length of 35-50mm on full frame. What this baby lack is a depth of field scale so you can easily do zone focusing. I do wish it was a 2.0 like that Voightlander equivalent.

The pancake is the 2nd cheapest lens amongst all Canon lenses. The 50/1.8 is the cheapest lens at $100.

Guys don't be too hard on the reviewer. Like any review it is but one man' opinion and personal criteria. I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.

I had Cps upgrade my firmware the day I bout it.

I think you make a good point. Not everyone needs or wants optical quality, and some people absolutely require it. I was very impressed with the quality of the images I took with the lens - but I only took photos with this lens when I was in more social environments, leaving it behind on assignment with a few exceptions when I forced myself to use it specifically for the review. 50 1.8 = bokeh and shallow dof 40 2.8 = image quality, both are small, affordable and pocketable. Heck, maybe people should buy both!

 

[Loswr]

And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.

Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!

 

[rhblmhb]

Isn't one of the biggest benefits of this lens that it utilizes the STM focusing system which allows continual auto-focusing while taking video? Everything in the review was what I expected from the lens but to leave that out seems like an oversight.

 

[JVLphoto]

And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.

Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!

Thanks, that's an interesting site, though I'm not quite sure how to read the "results"

 

[Loswr]

And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.

Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!

Thanks, that's an interesting site, though I'm not quite sure how to read the "results"

http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php

 

[TrumpetPower!]

And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.

Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!

Thanks, that's an interesting site, though I'm not quite sure how to read the "results"

Neither am I, though I'll heartily agree that the post-processing was very well done. I haven't critically examined it, but it's at least good enough that it doesn't make one think that critical examination is necessary -- which translates to, "Mission Accomplished!"

Cheers,

b&

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I love carrying the shorty 40 either in a walkabout kit as a pocket or back throw in with a longer lens (telephoto zoom or 135L). I recently traveled with the 24-105L, 135L, 1.4x and shorty forty. All of this went comfortably into a smallish sling bag and was a great combination. I did everything from landscapes to 3 portrait shoots on the trip. The shorty forty is a nice complement to the 135L for environmental portraits.

40mm is a nice "woods" length lens. Wide enough, and the sharpness is as good as anything I've got for things like that. It is also very sharp at minimum focus distance, which allows for some very crisp leaf or flower shots like this:


Hanging Around by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I do disagree with the reviewer as to this lens vs the 50mm f/1.8. The 40mm, while a slower aperture, is perfectly usable wide open, has much better color rendition, smoother transition to ooF, better build quality, and, of course, focuses much faster and quieter. IMO on a full frame body the 40mm is a preferable focal length (I prefer the 35mm range to the 50mm).

 

[JVLphoto]

And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.

Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!

Thanks, that's an interesting site, though I'm not quite sure how to read the "results"

http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php

Tl;dr