Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 21 Feb 2014 (Friday) 19:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 40mm vs 50mm

 
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Feb 23, 2014 07:59 |  #31

DreDaze wrote in post #16710170 (external link)
i guess i should've said, middle focal length f2.8 prime...obviously once you go long it's good...but a 40mm f2.8 prime on a crop to me doesn't make sense...you can buy a zoom that will cover that

Frodge wrote in post #16710321 (external link)
You can buy a zoom that covers any singular crops focal length....

You are missing (or ignoring) his point - zoom with f/2.8.

To add to what Sirrith pointed out.

(With the sharpness of many current zooms) Unless there is some other reason (macro, TS, IS), a single focal length with f/2.8 seems silly to some (especially if they already have a f/2.8 zoom). Yes, there is a size difference, but many a f/2.0 and f/1.4 primes are are also smaller than a zoom (but they are at least a stop faster).

So for me (I do own an f/2.8 zoom), in the case of the 50 vs 40. I see no reason to get a 40mm f/2.8 versus my 50mm f/1.8 MKI. I would rather have a noisy but over a stop faster f/1.8 than than a quieter f/2.8. Yes, the 40 is smaller, but to me not that much smaller (when we are talking 2-ish versus 1-ish inches). An f/1.4 would be even better but Canon's is prone to AF failure, and a Sigma is larger. An f/1.2 would be even better, but it is also large (plus I can't justify the price for that lens).

Yes, I can see some (just not me) wanting even the one inch difference. If I shot more video, I would likely go 40mm f/2.8 over the 50mm f/1.8 because of lack of noise and such. I'll even say that if I saw one for an excellent price, I would probably get it. But chances are it would get used less than the 50mm.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Dillan_K
Goldmember
Avatar
1,103 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 367
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Calgary Canada
     
Feb 23, 2014 13:05 |  #32

Krichton wrote in post #16708819 (external link)
Both lenses are way too short for portraits, unless you're using them in a very tight space for some reason.

On a crop sensor camera, like the OP has, I'd say a 50mm is just about perfect for portraits. Even on full frame 50mm lenses take great portraits. I use an EF 50mm f/1.4 for the purpose often. Take a look in the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/1.4 and EF 50mm f/1.2L threads some time. I'd say the 40mm f/2.8 would do a fine job too.


Gear: Canon 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 300mm f/4L IS, 5D, Elan 7, 420EX, Metz 52 AF-1
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,080 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 23, 2014 13:16 |  #33

Are we arguing against primes altogether because zooms are sharp enough that they (primes) aren't needed? The 40 destroyed the 50mm 1.8 in almost everything except the extra stop. If you get the 40 you would probably not mount the 50 again, ever. The extra stop on the 50 is almost useless because it has a focus mechanism that hunts in poor light. They're both good lenses for the money, but if I had to have one over the other the 40 really wins out in every aspect of you look close enough.


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Feb 23, 2014 13:44 as a reply to  @ Frodge's post |  #34

No, on prime versus the zoom argument. I'm saying that some will argue that a prime with the same aperture of a zoom should have some other major factor or why bother.

IMO the main thing the 40 brings is its small size. I also said for some that would be enough - just not me!

I personally would rather have the extra stop of the 50mm rather than the shorter quiet 40. That's fine! I was just giving a possible take of both lenses that I think/thought DreDaze was trying to express - And one I agree with.

I agree that they are both a good buy. To me the 50mm f/1.8 MKI is the better buy (if you can find one for where someone is not over charging), and I don't feel that the 40mm beats the 50 at everything (other than aperture). But the 40 has nicer OOFH.

I seldom mount the 50mm now (because of other lenses I own), but I know the 40 would be used even less.

People were asking for and giving their opinions, so I gave mine. To each their own, based on their needs and finances.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,080 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 23, 2014 17:16 |  #35

jimewall wrote in post #16711162 (external link)
No, on prime versus the zoom argument. I'm saying that some will argue that a prime with the same aperture of a zoom should have some other major factor or why bother.

IMO the main thing the 40 brings is its small size. I also said for some that would be enough - just not me!

I personally would rather have the extra stop of the 50mm rather than the shorter quiet 40. That's fine! I was just giving a possible take of both lenses that I think/thought DreDaze was trying to express - And one I agree with.

I agree that they are both a good buy. To me the 50mm f/1.8 MKI is the better buy (if you can find one for where someone is not over charging), and I don't feel that the 40mm beats the 50 at everything (other than aperture). But the 40 has nicer OOFH.

I seldom mount the 50mm now (because of other lenses I own), but I know the 40 would be used even less.

People were asking for and giving their opinions, so I gave mine. To each their own, based on their needs and finances.

Understood. I would agree 100% on the 50 if it weren't two things that are overlooked by some. 1.8 is only a selling point if you shoot in good light. It really becomes almost useless in poor light. This is not so with the 40mm. The 40 is also built better. Don't get me wrong, I still like the 50mm. I personally have not bought a lens I've been disappointed with. My comment was in no way meant to be inflammatory.no hard feelings.


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Feb 23, 2014 17:30 |  #36

Frodge wrote in post #16711679 (external link)
Understood. I would agree 100% on the 50 if it weren't two things that are overlooked by some. 1.8 is only a selling point if you shoot in good light. It really becomes almost useless in poor light. This is not so with the 40mm. The 40 is also built better. Don't get me wrong, I still like the 50mm. I personally have not bought a lens I've been disappointed with. My comment was in no way meant to be inflammatory.no hard feelings.

Are you comparing it to the Mk I or Mk II 50 though? That isn't quite clear from your sig or your posts.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Feb 23, 2014 19:35 |  #37

Frodge wrote in post #16711679 (external link)
Understood. I would agree 100% on the 50 if it weren't two things that are overlooked by some. 1.8 is only a selling point if you shoot in good light. It really becomes almost useless in poor light. This is not so with the 40mm. The 40 is also built better. Don't get me wrong, I still like the 50mm. I personally have not bought a lens I've been disappointed with. My comment was in no way meant to be inflammatory.no hard feelings.

Possibly if you are comparing it to the 50 MKII - I'm not. My MKI does just fine in low light. The build seemed at least as good as the 40mm (handling at the store).

No hard feelings, just giving my opinion.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,080 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 23, 2014 19:56 |  #38

jimewall wrote in post #16712044 (external link)
Possibly if you are comparing it to the 50 MKII - I'm not. My MKI does just fine in low light. The build seemed at least as good as the 40mm (handling at the store).

No hard feelings, just giving my opinion.

Then We are in agreement. I'm talking mkii. The 40 does take brilliant photos.


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Feb 23, 2014 20:54 |  #39

Frodge wrote in post #16712095 (external link)
Then We are in agreement. I'm talking mkii. The 40 does take brilliant photos.

Sounds like we are!


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,009 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2115
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Feb 23, 2014 21:18 |  #40

The way I see it, just have both. What's the point in arguing over lenses this cheap anyway ;)

In all honesty, I love the 40mm over the 50mm ƒ1.8. The field of view is great, even on a crop I like it. And as someone has already said, there's something special about the shots the 40 makes.


6D | 600D | A6000 | 10-22mm ƒ3.5-4.5 USM | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | TM 35mm ƒ1.8 VC | 40mm ƒ2.8 STM | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 55-250 ƒ4.5-5.6 II | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4
Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,080 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 23, 2014 21:22 |  #41

NCHANT wrote in post #16712283 (external link)
The way I see it, just have both. What's the point in arguing over lenses this cheap anyway ;)

In all honesty, I love the 40mm over the 50mm ƒ1.8. The field of view is great, even on a crop I like it. And as someone has already said, there's something special about the shots the 40 makes.

I agree on all accounts.


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Terri400D
Member
126 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: London UK
     
Feb 24, 2014 10:27 as a reply to  @ Frodge's post |  #42

I have both lens, since I bought the 40m the 50 has never come out!:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
burb1972
Member
126 posts
Joined Aug 2013
     
Feb 26, 2014 11:45 |  #43

The zoom vs prime argument is valid for crop, why get a 40 2.8 when you can get sharp zooms at 2.8. But its way different on FF. There really only is 1 standard range zoom that performs as good as a prime corner to corner at 2.8 and its $2000. I love my 50 1.8 i. Its the best option for me now(most durable, sharp, bokeh is meh sometimes.) however there are 2 new 50's that are coming out any day.


mike parker
gear list 5dc, tamron 19-35, tamron 28-75, 50mm 1.8 mark 1, 28-70 3.5 canon(x2), 100 f/2 canon, 70-300 usm is, helios 44-2, vpk lens put into a m42 cap attached to a bellows, 430 ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Feb 26, 2014 11:51 |  #44

50 on crop is very tight. Go for the 40. better IQ and more suitable for landscape. Even thought 40 on crop is not very wide lol


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frankwite
Senior Member
Avatar
400 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Feb 26, 2014 16:00 |  #45

For me 50 1.8 hands down over the 40mm any day. I only use the 40 when I'm forced to like say if I"m going to an event and don't want to carry a huge camera. Even then I'd rather attach my 35mm or 28mm to it but it makes it more bulky to carry. Having a short prime that's 2.8 is a waste of time imo. I'm hoping that canon releases a 22mm pancake lens for my sl1 and I'll instantly give it away. Thank goodness I only paid $75 for it new. I would be happier with it if I had only paid $25 for it. Like someone stated earlier it's a cheap lens as well. If you drop it say good night to it.


5D ll | 5D | SL1 | Lumix LX7 | 24-105L| 70-200L| 135L| 85 1.8| 50 1.4| 28 1.8| 50 1.8 ll| 40 2.8 STM| 35 2.0|75-300 lll|18-55 STM| 28-75 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,774 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 40mm vs 50mm
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Ckort66
840 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.