Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

[JVLphoto]

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).

Perfect counter points, a great addendum to my own experience. We just need a video person in this forum and it's all covered!

 

[AudioGlenn]

I love my shorty. sure I don't use it everyday but it helps out the shoulders/neck when walking around all day at an amusement park. I use it for it's intended purpose. non-mission-critical, casual photography when I don't want to lug around the big guns. It's the ninja lens. The rest of my guys are big Samurai and Sumo wrestlers!

 

[dlheidemann]

I picked one of these up not too long ago and I'm totally loving it. With my zoom lenses I find I'm always hovering around the 40mm range anyway, so it seemed pretty obvious. The price is fantastic and the image quality is pretty dang good if you ask me.

I feel like prime lenses of all types force you to think about photography differently. It makes you interact with your subject in a different and what I think is an ultimately more organic way.

 

[Alex]

Please tell me that wasn't actually a real 40mm having syrup poured over it and that it was photoshopped

 

[JVLphoto]

Please tell me that wasn't actually a real 40mm having syrup poured over it and that it was photoshopped

Okay.

 

[Harry Muff]

Love how you waited for Pancake Day to post this. ;D

 

[Rowbear]

I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.

Same here, the 'lil 40 is much better in every way.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.

Same here, the 'lil 40 is much better in every way.

Almost every way.

The Plastic Fantastic is over a stop faster and a bit longer and thus can get a shallower depth of field.

The extra stop is nice for low light, too, but the insane high ISO abilities of modern cameras make that advantage of wide apertures much less important.

If I had to choose between the Plastic Fantastic and the Shorty McForty, I'd pick the Shorty McForty in a heartbeat, though. The Plastic Fantastic wouldn't be my go-to lens for wide aperture work, so that one area where it narrowly beats the Shorty McForty is irrelevant to me.

b&

 

[RS2021]

Long Live the Shorty McForty!

b&

It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".

There is no linkage to this lens in particular to the celtic naming you are trying to promote other than someone trying hard to make it stick....may be if it were wearing a kilt?

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Long Live the Shorty McForty!

b&

It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".

There is no linkage to this lens in particular to the celtic naming you are trying to promote other than someone trying hard to make it stick....may be if it were wearing a kilt?

Well, I don't know about anybody else's Shorty McForty, but mine not only wears a very stylish kilt, but it's got great big hairy brass ones hidden underneath, swinging freely in the breeze. It positively thrives on the Water of Life. And the way it plays the pipes would raise the dead and kill the living. Oh -- it also likes haggis for breakfast and porridge for supper.

...that, and I've not only always heard it referred to with that honorific, I also like the way it rolls off the tongue.

b&

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Well, I don't know about anybody else's Shorty McForty, but mine not only wears a very stylish kilt, but it's got great big hairy brass ones hidden underneath, swinging freely in the breeze. It positively thrives on the Water of Life. And the way it plays the pipes would raise the dead and kill the living. Oh -- it also likes haggis for breakfast and porridge for supper.

...that, and I've not only always heard it referred to with that honorific, I also like the way it rolls off the tongue.

b&

LMAO ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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

Very interesting site indeed ... did not know something like this existed for free. Thanks for sharing

 

[dolina]

I have a Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE that is faster than the 50/1.8. If I need more speed there is the 1.2 or 1.0 50mm.

A point against the 50/1.8 is the design is from 1990 and it is rumored to be slated for a replacement with a Series 3.

The whole point of the 50/1.8 is not optical quality but price then followed by weight and speed. With the 40/2.8 my shooting style is always stopped down at 4.0 through 8.0.

I am the type of shooter who prefers optical quality of lens speed. I could've gotten any Sigma lens that is cheaper but IQ and ergonomics are far 2nd to the optics Canon has released in the past decade.

Almost every way.

The Plastic Fantastic is over a stop faster and a bit longer and thus can get a shallower depth of field.

The extra stop is nice for low light, too, but the insane high ISO abilities of modern cameras make that advantage of wide apertures much less important.

If I had to choose between the Plastic Fantastic and the Shorty McForty, I'd pick the Shorty McForty in a heartbeat, though. The Plastic Fantastic wouldn't be my go-to lens for wide aperture work, so that one area where it narrowly beats the Shorty McForty is irrelevant to me.

b&

 

[aroo]

It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".

I seriously hope Nifty Von Fifty sticks.

 

[R1-7D]

An okay review. I'd take my 40 f/2.8 in a heart beat over my 50 f/1.8.

I have to say the pancake is one of my all time favorite lenses!

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.

I loved the 24-105L (I have owned two copies, just recently sold my last because the Tamron 24-70 VC nudged it out), but at similar apertures the shorty forty will top it in IQ. Hard to believe, but true. Sharpness across the frame is REALLY high in the shorty. Stopped down to f/8 or so the sharpness across the frame is as good as anything in my kit. I have read that refraction sets in after f/10 or so, so I wouldn't suggest using it as a primary landscape lens if you want really deep depth of field, but its resolution is impressively high for such a small optic.

 

[JVLphoto]

I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.

Yeah, I don't think you'll be disappointed by the 40mm at all with this setup. I may be a bit jaded having recently come off of using the incredible 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L II.

 

[alan_k]

I have a shorty forty but haven't used it much yet. The list price is $200, but over the holidays it was $40 or $50 less with rebates. Throw some store discounts on top of that and it was too cheap to pass up.

I've got that mid-range focal length well represented already- it's a stop faster than my 17-40L, it's slower than my Sigma 30/1.4 and nifty 50. I'm tempted to get a cheap rebel body just for this lens- is that crazy?

 

[wayno]

I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.

Yeah, I don't think you'll be disappointed by the 40mm at all with this setup. I may be a bit jaded having recently come off of using the incredible 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L II.

I know that feeling!