The Shorty Forty MTF Chart Comparison

[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/the-shorty-forty-mtf-chart-comparison/"></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/the-shorty-forty-mtf-chart-comparison/" 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/the-shorty-forty-mtf-chart-comparison/"></a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM


</strong>Below are some comparison MTF charts of the 50 f/1.8 II, 50 f/1.4 & 40 f/2.8 STM.</p>
<p>The lens looks pretty decent in the center, and tails off a bit in the corners. However, it looks better than both of the current non L 50′s in the Canon lineup.</p>
<p>I also dig the moniker “Shorty Forty” for the new pancake. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7170.msg131806#msg131806" target="_blank">Taemobig on our forum</a> may or may not have come up with the name.</p>
<div id="attachment_10262" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/40pancakemtf.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-10262" title="40pancakemtf" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/40pancakemtf-575x194.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="194" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Comparison MTF To the 50 f/1.4 & 50 f/1.8 II - Click for Larger</p></div>
<p><strong>Preorder links


</strong>Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM $199 <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></strong> | <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></p>
<p><em>thanks mattbru</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[max]

yeah but it is f/2.8...

 

[adhocphotographer]

yeah but it is f/2.8...

Sure... but i think the point isn't to make an amazing low light lens, but a small one... I'm now sold on it... it is wider (focal range) and smaller than the 50 i have on my 450D almost every day... And for 200$, it is no brainer for me!

 

[seta666]

Well, black lines show maximum aperture so it is normal for the f2.8 lens to be sharper than the other 2; at f8 it is the sharpest of the three but I also guess that fast lenses with biger glass have more complicated designs.

Whe I so this lens anouncement I inmediately thought of the C/Y carl zeiss tessar 45/2.8, known to be an ultrasharp lens. In the past I was thinking to buy that one for my 5D mkII but it is know to hit the mirror so this 40/2.8 seems as a good alternative. I find 40/2.8 quite usefull for walkaround, at least for full frame cameras

regards

 

[awinphoto]

It's MTF is quite impressive all things considering... just dont drop it, or sneeze on it, or pass gas near it... haha

 

[kode]

I made the same observations re the MTF graphs. It looks really good compared to the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, neither of which are bad optically. I'm just about to preorder it, but it'll apparently start shipping as late as late august/early september over here.

It's MTF is quite impressive all things considering... just dont drop it, or sneeze on it, or pass gas near it... haha

Compared to the 50/1.8 II, I'm willing to bet the build quality is metric miles ahead. Half the size, same weight.

 

[awinphoto]

I made the same observations re the MTF graphs. It looks really good compared to the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, neither of which are bad optically. I'm just about to preorder it, but it'll apparently start shipping as late as late august/early september over here.

It's MTF is quite impressive all things considering... just dont drop it, or sneeze on it, or pass gas near it... haha

Compared to the 50/1.8 II, I'm willing to bet the build quality is metric miles ahead. Half the size, same weight.

I just wish the MF ring didn't look like such an afterthought. The MF ring on L lenses are wider than this lens is total most likely. I just hope, with the pancake design, that OOF bokeh doesn't look like crap and the element doesn't extend when focusing.

 

[spinworkxroy]

This only shows how badly Canon needs to update their 50 f1.4!

 

[garyploski]

Noob at reading these charts here. The x and y axis are not labelled, what should be there?

 

[garyploski]

Also, there is no legend for what the lines represent. ???

 

[kode]

Also, there is no legend for what the lines represent. ???

This is a good read on how to read MTF graphs:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Ladies unt chentlemen, ve haff a veener!

With an MTF chart like that, there's basically nothing left to complain about. Sure, it's only f/2.8, but so are the 16-35, the 24-70, the 70-200, and the fast supertelephotos. "Only" f/2.8 for a lens with this image quality, this size, silent full-time manual autofocus, all in a package hardly bigger than its rear lens cap?

Sign me up!

b&

 

[kode]

I just wish the MF ring didn't look like such an afterthought. The MF ring on L lenses are wider than this lens is total most likely. I just hope, with the pancake design, that OOF bokeh doesn't look like crap and the element doesn't extend when focusing.

Certainly. The focus ring is probably as large as they could make it, more or less, but it'll still beat the 50/1.8 II focus ring (and it has FTM, to boot).

Background rendering with pancake lenses can be really good, so I share your hopes there. Press release (or at least dpreview) says internal focusing, so I guess it shouldn't extend?

 

[Dylan777]

side by side + above .8 = I'll take one

 

[rpt]

Also, there is no legend for what the lines represent. ???

Don't worry about it. Read, google, YouTube and it will not need legends. I was there a few months back. now a MTF chart does not rattle me...

 

[garyploski]

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[preppyak]

side by side + above .8 = I'll take one

Well, and on APS-C, the corners seem like they could still be fairly sharp. By the MTF chart, its stronger than the 50mm f/1,8 until the very edge of an APS-C sensor

 

[Albi86]

Sorry, but these charts looks very much a marketing trick.

What's the point of comparing lenses at maximum aperture, if it's not the same? Not surprising that the pancake is sharper @f/2.8 than the fifty @f/1.8. Let's compare them both @f/2.8 and let's see. Even @f/1.8 the fifty is not far behind, I would not be surprised to see it catch up by f/2.8.

The lines @f/8 might well be a measurement of maximum sharpness, but honestly, who cares? Who's buying these lenses to shoot @f/8?

I remain of the same idea, unless you shoot a lot of videos this pancake is a waste of money, as little as it could be.

 

[dok]

The lines @f/8 might well be a measurement of maximum sharpness, but honestly, who cares? Who's buying these lenses to shoot @f/8?

Probably a lot of people. Simply because there are a lot of people who like prime lenses and sometimes prefer them over zooms (for reasons that have been already debated). And then, I guess these people care about the IQ not only wide open because they also shoot landscapes with it. It's as simple as that.
I'm part of these people and I would be willing to buy if the IQ proved to be good from f/2.8 to f/11.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Sorry, but these charts looks very much a marketing trick.

Eh, Canon's MTF charts have a well-deserved reputation. Bad individual copies of lenses excepted, I don't think anybody's ever come up with a lens that didn't perform similarly to their published charts.

What's the point of comparing lenses at maximum aperture, if it's not the same?

Because you want to know how well the lens performs at its maximum aperture. What would be the point of an MTF chart for the 400 f/2.8 that only had lines for f/5.6?

The f/8 lines are there for the apples-to-apples comparison you're hinting that you want.

Not surprising that the pancake is sharper @f/2.8 than the fifty @f/1.8. Let's compare them both @f/2.8 and let's see. Even @f/1.8 the fifty is not far behind, I would not be surprised to see it catch up by f/2.8.

Considering how much better the 40 is at f/8, I rather doubt either 50 will be as sharp at f/2.8 as the 40. It could happen, but I doubt it.

The lines @f/8 might well be a measurement of maximum sharpness, but honestly, who cares? Who's buying these lenses to shoot @f/8?

Are you kidding? Or are you not a photographer?

Seriously, wide-open shooting is the exception in the world of photography, not the rule. Sure, there are lots of types of photography that call for big apertures, but there're many more that require the entire subject to be sharp. And f/8 is the perfect aperture for that -- it's close to if not at every lens's optimum performance; it's small enough for a generous depth of field; and it's not too small for diffraction to muddy things up. There's a reason why the saying is, "f/8 and be there," and not "wide open and be there."

I remain of the same idea, unless you shoot a lot of videos this pancake is a waste of money, as little as it could be.

Again, missing the point.

Sure, the video crowd is going to eat this up with the silent autofocussing and what-not.

But I'm sure you'll find an awful lot of pros getting these as replacement body caps, and then using them in place of digicams. It's the perfect pro's party camera, for example, especially with that one-foot minimum focus distance. Imagine a wedding photographer getting out on the dance floor, in the middle of the Conga line, with one of these for what I mean.

b&