I tried it at the store and I love it. And at its price point, it seems more worth it than the 50mm 1.8.
Anybody here got it yet? Pros cons?
Anybody here got it yet? Pros cons?
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anybody got the new Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM?
- Thread starter NZed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Supposed to be great for video. I looked at it and already own the 24-70, so don't see any reason to buy one.
24-70 weighs ~1kg. You can't carry with you everywhere, it's just too heavy and big. Here's your reason.
Haha, but from your signature(your signature! holy ****!) you wouldnt be buying a non L lens!
24-70 weighs ~1kg. You can't carry with you everywhere, it's just too heavy and big. Here's your reason.
I carry a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on my camera. It's been practically glued on since I got it. And I keep my 24-70 in my bag. It's not heavy at all.
(but I think I could use one of your 5D mk IIIs though
)The 40mm STM is supposed to be great for using autofocus while shooting video. And as we all know, autofocusing while shooting video SUCKS, even on the T4i. So my verdict is that with a pancake lens with an abysmal focus ring without IS, this is a horrible lens for video.
If you're gonna shoot video, go with the 24-105.
If you want an ok-good prime, then the 40mm is a certainly worthwhile choice. But when there's the half-as-expensive-and-4/3-stop-faster 50mm f/1.8 and the optically superior 50mm f/1.4, I see no reason to get this as an alternative for a nifty fifty.
I do see potential for it replacing the 35mm f/2; although being a full stop slower, the 40mm does have a much better bokeh, thanks to its 7-rounded-blade aperture.
As an owner of both a (Pentax) 40mm f/2.8 pancake and 50mm f/1.4 I can say that much prefer the 40mm pancake.
IMO 40mm is a much more comfortable focal length to work with on a crop body, and it has the advantage of being super light and small, the size of a body cap almost.
With advancements in modern bodies' high ISO performance, I'm much more inclined to crank the ISO than shoot wider than f/2.8, which gives me far more keepers.
Since getting my 40mm pancake I've hardly used the 50mm.
Last edited:
I haven't read up on the reviews yet, but do you think it's optically on par with the 50 1.4?
I can only comment on the convenience in size and focal length - I own a Pentax 40mm f/2.8 Ltd and FA 50mm f/1.4
*Edited original post
THe 50 1.4 is twice the price of the 40mm. I've tried the 1.4 and its the most recommended one.
Not quite on par but following right behind.
Its probably better than the 50mm for shooting things that arent people, but for people shots I cant imagine it being better. I think 50mm is pushing it for people as it is, 40mm makes people look weird and would make the non-photogenics look just plain bad.
I bought one because it's fairly cheap and looks like an interesting lens that isn't bulky.
My mini-review: http://www.ocabj.net/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-stm-pancake-lens/
I'm still waiting for Adobe to update LR to include a lens profile for it.
My mini-review: http://www.ocabj.net/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-stm-pancake-lens/
I'm still waiting for Adobe to update LR to include a lens profile for it.
The 50 1.4 is an awful lens which is in in desperate need of a redesign by Canon. I found it unusably soft at any aperture wider than 2.8. From the specs the 40 looks like a much better lens although not as fast of course.
I got the chance to try all the 50mm by Canon. And by far, the 50 1.4 is the best from all. 1.2 and 1.8 has so many focus problems.
It might be the best, but that's because the others are worse.
The 1.4 is fantastically sharp from f2.8 - but for me it was unusable wide open. I can't see the point of having fast lenses if they're so soft at the widest aperture. Nikon has it right with it's new 50mm 1.4G - the MTF charts are really good even at 1.4.