aduda wrote in post #17259945
I like mine a lot. For walking around, I like to put a lens pouch on my belt with my 135, and put the 40 the 6D. I like it by itself too.
It has also gotten use by my wife, who has very little experience. She basically likes it as an alternative to her phone when taking pictures of the baby around the house. The 2.8 is good for lower light situations. I feel like much 1.8, or even 1.4 creates depth of field that is almost too shallow for her to be comfortable with. Also, the focal length seems to work well for her on a full frame. And, obviously the fact that it is so compact is a plus. I feel like it is far less intimidating for her than any other lenses I have.
40 + 135L is a fantastic combo, as well as 40 + 70-200mkii. Good enough in lowlight without flash, and the 40's optics really do stand quite well against L glass. I say that the 40's glass is on par with Canon's latest generation of L glass, it's very very good. Debating between 40 vs 50 is debating landscape shooters vs bokeholics. In general, I choose bokeholic, but the 50 has really terrible AF, thats what makes the decision tough.
I get significantly better in focus shots with my manual glass, than I do with the nifty fifty and AF. It's the worst AF to exist, other than the 50 1.4 which is the least reliable
Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC