Which lens is better for Street Photography, the EF 40mm STM or EF 50mm 1.8 II?

[pwp]

I'm with everyone else on this...skip the 50 f/1.8II and choose the 40 pancake. I had the 40 for a while, it was sharp, quiet, had fast AF and was deliciously compact. And cheap! You'll probably have no trouble getting a perfect used one for under $100. Superficial people like me who bought them when they first came out, seduced by the fun factor, are finding they're sitting unused after the initial fascination wore off. But then I've always been a sucker for a pancake...

That doesn't mean the 40 is not a great lens, it just didn't fit with my first choice work-a-day glass which are the three-high selling f/2.8 L zooms. The 40 comprehensively outclasses the 50 f/1.8II in almost every respect.

-pw

 

[StudentOfLight]

I've never owned the 50mm f/1.8 so cannot offer any real feedback on that lens specifically, however on the 50mm focal length... on a couple of occasions I've found the 50mm f/1.4 a bit too long in areas with limited space. Whenever I pack a camera bag I always pop in the 40mm STM (or the EF-S 24mm if I'm shooting on APS-C). They are compact, lightweight, inconspicuous lenses which can deliver great detail as well as useful close-focus capabilities.

 

[mpphoto]

Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II. I don't think the AF is that slow. Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II. They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake. First, I wouldn't get much for it. Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

 

[9VIII]

If the Pancake is an option, the Pancake is always the correct choice.

 

[R1-7D]

If the Pancake is an option, the Pancake is always the correct choice.

Love my pancake!

 

[ecka]

Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II. I don't think the AF is that slow. Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II. They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake. First, I wouldn't get much for it. Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.

 

[FTb-n]

Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II. I don't think the AF is that slow. Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II. They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake. First, I wouldn't get much for it. Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.

Curious. The-Digital-Picture.com confirms your note on vignetting, but the bokeh looks pretty good. I use mine wide open most of the time (which is one reason for buying an f2.0 lens) and haven't noticed the vignetting at all. I have no complaints on bokeh, but then my subject matter hasn't revealed it much.

You make a good point on value. The pancake is an incredible lens for a great price. The 35 IS shines in low light, action, and creative slow shutter shots. One needs to determine whether these scenarios are worth the extra price tag.

 

[JPAZ]

Had and sold the 50 1.8 (that should say something). Then got the 50 1.4 which is now gathering dust since I got the 40. Any issues with low light or IQ just don't matter when I can slip the 40 into my pocket and take with me no matter what body or other lenses I m using.

 

[AvTvM]

If the Pancake is an option, the Pancake is always the correct choice.

hehe!
+1
8)

Had and sold the 50/1.8. Have the 50/1.4, but hardly use it. Also got the 40/2.8 and like it. Currently I only got the EOS-M to use it with.
Don't have the 35/2 IS, but consider it mainly a video lens. To me not worth it "for stills" only. Especially for street photography. Shutter times mostly used in street with typically "not very fast moving" subjects can be hand-held without IS with 40/2.8.

 

[ecka]

Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II. I don't think the AF is that slow. Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II. They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake. First, I wouldn't get much for it. Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.

Curious. The-Digital-Picture.com confirms your note on vignetting, but the bokeh looks pretty good. I use mine wide open most of the time (which is one reason for buying an f2.0 lens) and haven't noticed the vignetting at all. I have no complaints on bokeh, but then my subject matter hasn't revealed it much.

You make a good point on value. The pancake is an incredible lens for a great price. The 35 IS shines in low light, action, and creative slow shutter shots. One needs to determine whether these scenarios are worth the extra price tag.

Well, 35 IS bokeh may be lacking the smoothness in a specific focus range, just like 40 STM does, but it also has that "directional pattern" towards the edges and corners, which (IMHO) makes it even worse. Maybe it's not that obvious on crop cameras, but on FF it looks pretty bad.
About the vignetting. It may not show if you are shooting JPGs with the peripheral illumination correction turned on.

 

[rhysb123]

I had the 40mm, sold it the other week to get the Sigma 35.

Really, REALLY miss the 40mm (even though the 35 is great!).

 

[jdramirez]

I had the 40mm, sold it the other week to get the Sigma 35.

Really, REALLY miss the 40mm (even though the 35 is great!).

I presume because of the size?

 

[rhysb123]

Because of the size, weight and IQ.

IQ was superb

 

[jdramirez]

Because of the size, weight and IQ.

IQ was superb

I'm surprised the sigma doesn't trounce the 40.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

the 40mm is newer, the color is very vivid and its sharp vs the 501.8 how ever brighter is always best for lower light.

 

[FTb-n]

Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II. I don't think the AF is that slow. Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II. They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake. First, I wouldn't get much for it. Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.

Curious. The-Digital-Picture.com confirms your note on vignetting, but the bokeh looks pretty good. I use mine wide open most of the time (which is one reason for buying an f2.0 lens) and haven't noticed the vignetting at all. I have no complaints on bokeh, but then my subject matter hasn't revealed it much.

You make a good point on value. The pancake is an incredible lens for a great price. The 35 IS shines in low light, action, and creative slow shutter shots. One needs to determine whether these scenarios are worth the extra price tag.

Well, 35 IS bokeh may be lacking the smoothness in a specific focus range, just like 40 STM does, but it also has that "directional pattern" towards the edges and corners, which (IMHO) makes it even worse. Maybe it's not that obvious on crop cameras, but on FF it looks pretty bad.
About the vignetting. It may not show if you are shooting JPGs with the peripheral illumination correction turned on.

With apologies to a guy named Jared, I SHOOT RAW. Still, subject matter often determines the degree with which certain lens flaws are visible. My favorite shots from the 35 IS are of the first dance at recent wedding. The newlyweds are in the middle with guests, floors, and darkly light walls occupying the corners. Vignetting isn't noticeable here. I need to shoot an evenly lit, white wall at f2.0 to see the vignetting where it is noticeable.

However, I'm more inclined to recommend the 40 pancake for street photography, if the focal length matches the OP's need.

As luck would have it, I'm planning a weekend trip where my main need will be a 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. But, I want a shorter lens for candid moments when out and about. I also want to travel light, so plan to leave the second body and the 24-70 home. So, I started playing with the 35 IS and the 40 with this in mind. I must say, with a full-frame body, the 40 does quite well in low light and it is much more inconspicuous -- and it is SHARP. The 40 is my choice for this trip and I think it would be the best option for OP.

 

[slclick]

What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)

 

[AvTvM]

What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)

Yes! Thise teo pancakes make a very decent combo on an SL1/100D.

I'd love to have the same for my new 5d iii. But ungortunately, the 24 pancake is only EF-S.

 

[slclick]

What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)

Yes! Thise teo pancakes make a very decent combo on an SL1/100D.

I'd love to have the same for my new 5d iii. But ungortunately, the 24 pancake is only EF-S.

The 40 IS the same as the 24 on a crop, well close enough. I love the 40 on my Mk3

 

[sdsr]

It depends in part on what sort of street photography you do and on what sort of streets: in some situations 40mm will be too long, in others too wide (and if you're photographing people, how close are you willing to get? 50mm may be too short), whereas if you want to be able to get shallow focus and/or minimize noise 50 1.8 is better than 40 2.8. If stealth matters, the 40mm has quieter and faster (and probably more accurate) AF. Neither weighs much, and neither is big enough to be more noticeable than the other when mounted on a 6D body (who would be scared away by 6D + 50mm 1.8 but not by 6D + 40mm?); if not being noticed is important, get a smaller camera that can be used silently. If lots of smooth bokeh matters much, look elsewhere.

Lenstip just re-evaluated the 50m 1.8 - you may want to read their review:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=424

You can, of course, get better lenses than either, but they'll be bigger and heavier and, depending on how you view your images, the differences in image quality may not matter. Neither lens you're considering is expensive enough to be a worrying waste of money.