sa_20v wrote in post #17365084
Yeah, that's exactly what some of the reviews on YouTube have stated. I guess at 1.4 it would be twice the price!
I have full frame & APS-C, and I have the 40 F2.8 STM as well. I like it. It's nice. But F2.8 definitely is not the same as having F1.4 and F2 on primes which is more readily available and more unique to primes. F2.8 is zoom territory and slower prime range. Sure, it allows for a very small lens, which is very cool and nice, but ultimately I don't find a pancake being any "smaller" for me when I'm attaching it to a large dSLR. I think the field of view of the 24mm on APS-C is great, it's just like what full frame users experience with the 40 F2.8. But on APS-C, the F2.8 aperture in terms of field of view is not the same, so for a prime, while F2.8 is on the slower side, it's also limited in terms of depth of field control (on APS-C).
But this is why I ended up going with an EOS-M and 22mm F2 pancake. Small in all ways. Pancake. F2 for a superior prime that is pancake. Sharp as all get out. But this was my personal preference as a solution to small, while keeping the quality of a large sensor.
In the sense of using it over the 17-55 F2.8 zoom, which has superb image quality, the only advantage the prime has here is the size. But to me, since it's not like you're putting the whole thing in your pocket with it being SLR, the size is negligible. So it's likely better to have the range of 17-55, having F2.8 the whole way, seems better to me. And I'm a prime guy.