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 29 Jan 2018 (Monday) 08:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35is vs 40stm?

 
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,346 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2072
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 6 months ago by Wilt. (4 edits in all)
     
Jan 30, 2018 09:44 |  #16

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18552073 (external link)
If you need the small size keep the 40.

The conventional wisdom back in the days of film was that if the FL difference was not by a factor of at least 20%, it was not worth owning a lens on the basis of FL alone. So other factors, like relative size/weight might make two similar FL lenses worth owning, as you might prefer size over other advantages at different times. Some of the other criteria worth pondering

  • f/2 vs. f/2.8
  • how much you prefer to use moderate wide 35mm FL over a more 'normal' FL (if FF)
  • how much you prefer to use 'normal' 35mm FL over a short tele FL (if used on APS-C)
  • if shooting video, STM better due to lower noise while focusing
  • IS capable lens vs. not

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,777 posts
Gallery: 1161 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8336
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 30, 2018 09:47 |  #17

Wilt wrote in post #18552349 (external link)
  • if shooting video, STM better due to lower noise while focusing
  • This is only true for some STM lenses. Frankly the 40 STM & 50 STM are noisy. No quieter than the sound of USM. You can plainly hear them. The 18-55 STM however is dead silent and you cannot hear it.

    Not all STM are the same for silence with respect to audio recording during video.

    Very best,


    My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    mwsilver
    Goldmember
    3,752 posts
    Gallery: 17 photos
    Likes: 355
    Joined Oct 2011
    Location: Central New Jersey
    Post edited 6 months ago by mwsilver. (2 edits in all)
         
    Jan 30, 2018 10:09 |  #18

    MalVeauX wrote in post #18552350 (external link)
    This is only true for some STM lenses. Frankly the 40 STM & 50 STM are noisy. No quieter than the sound of USM. You can plainly hear them. The 18-55 STM however is dead silent and you cannot hear it.

    Not all STM are the same for silence with respect to audio recording during video.

    Very best,

    I would even say that my 50mm STM, at least, is actually noisier than the USM motor on my 35mm f/2 IS.. It's a surprisingly noisy and annoying whining kind of sound. And it's definitely not as usable for video as other STM lenses. The quietest lens I own is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. It's almost as silent as the most quiet STM lenses.


    Mark
    Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    MalVeauX
    "Looks rough and well used"
    Avatar
    12,777 posts
    Gallery: 1161 photos
    Best ofs: 3
    Likes: 8336
    Joined Feb 2013
    Location: Florida
         
    Jan 30, 2018 12:12 |  #19

    mwsilver wrote in post #18552363 (external link)
    I would even say that my 50mm STM, at least, is actually noisier than the USM motor on my 35mm f/2 IS.. It's a surprisingly noisy and annoying whining kind of sound. And it's definitely not as usable for video as other STM lenses. The quietest lens I own is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. It's almost as silent as the most quiet STM lenses.

    Agree, the 40 STM & 50 STM so far have been the noisiest of the STM's I've used. Even the 24 F2.8 STM is noisy. Those pancake versions are just not the same as the ones in the zooms.

    Very best,


    My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    n1as
    Goldmember
    2,327 posts
    Likes: 24
    Joined Oct 2007
    Location: Salem, OR
         
    Feb 06, 2018 23:42 |  #20

    My 35 f/2 IS produces higher contrast and better colors than my 40 stm. I sold the 40.


    - Keith
    http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    RPCrowe
    Cream of the Crop
    Avatar
    7,962 posts
    Likes: 876
    Joined Nov 2005
    Location: San Diego County, California, USA
    Post edited 6 months ago by RPCrowe. (2 edits in all)
         
    Feb 09, 2018 19:01 |  #21

    TWO THINGS:

    1. The 35mm f/2 IS is a great video lens on my 6D Mark ii. I don't record with the in camera mike so focusing sound is no problem. The IS of the lens combined with the in camera IS (for video) is really nice.

    2. On a 1.6x crop camera, the 35mm, at 56mm equivalent is (IMO) a better and more natural focal length than the 64mm equivalent of the 40mm. I think that a 35mm f/2.8 STM lens might have sold better:rolleyes:.

    3. (I lied when I said two things:-() the extra stop of the f/2 lens can often save the day in shooting under low light conditions. The 6D Mark ii with 35mm f/2.0 IS lens is my favorite low light combination...

    BTW: I own both lenses and seldom use the 40mm for either video or stills since I got the 35mm f/2.0 IS.


    See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    Tom ­ Reichner
    "I am a little creepy"
    Avatar
    12,154 posts
    Gallery: 140 photos
    Best ofs: 1
    Likes: 2923
    Joined Dec 2008
    Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
         
    Feb 21, 2018 16:53 |  #22

    n1as wrote in post #18558244 (external link)
    My 35 f/2 IS produces higher contrast and better colors than my 40 stm. I sold the 40.

    RPCrowe wrote in post #18560323 (external link)
    I own both lenses and seldom use the 40mm for either video or stills since I got the 35mm f/2.0 IS.

    It seems so odd to me to hear (actually, read ..... but you know what I mean) these comments.

    This is because I remember years ago when the 40mm lens first came out there was a whole lot of like for it. . So why now the displeasure with it? . Is it that, perhaps, those who liked it so much maybe weren't very picky about optics?

    The same thing seemed to have happened with the 55-250mm EF-S lens ....... years ago people were all, like, praising this lens and saying what a great performer it was. . But now, people say things like "it wouldn't be my first choice" or "you can do a lot better" and stuff like that. . And they're saying this about the latest version of the 55-250, which is even better than the original version that they praised so highly.

    What gives? . Why the flip-flopping of collective sentiment regarding these lenses?

    .


    "Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
    "They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
    "Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    Bassat
    "I am still in my underwear."
    Avatar
    7,914 posts
    Likes: 2668
    Joined Oct 2015
         
    Feb 21, 2018 18:28 |  #23

    Tom Reichner wrote in post #18569253 (external link)
    It seems so odd to me to hear (actually, read ..... but you know what I mean) these comments.

    This is because I remember years ago when the 40mm lens first came out there was a whole lot of like for it. . So why now the displeasure with it? . Is it that, perhaps, those who liked it so much maybe weren't very picky about optics?

    The same thing seemed to have happened with the 55-250mm EF-S lens ....... years ago people were all, like, praising this lens and saying what a great performer it was. . But now, people say things like "it wouldn't be my first choice" or "you can do a lot better" and stuff like that. . And they're saying this about the latest version of the 55-250, which is even better than the original version that they praised so highly.

    What gives? . Why the flip-flopping of collective sentiment regarding these lenses?

    .

    There is a lot of emotion involved in what folks think of lenses. Consider the 300mm f/4L IS USM, the 70-300L, and the 100-400Lc.
    Check out the data at PZ.de. At 300mm and all wide open, the 100-400Lc is sharper, with less distortion, and less vignetting than either of the other lenses. The 300, and the 70-300L are both holding their values quite well. Prices on used 100-400Lc lenses are in the toilet. The 100-400Lc gets slammed for it AI-Servo AF performance. I've used it for sports/athletics on a 1D3 and 1D4 with great success; never had an OOF shot I could blame on the camera lens. The 70-300 is stellar at 70mm. The 300mm prime offers only f/4, where it isn't as good as the 100-400L at f/5.6. Seems to me the zoom is way more versatile.

    The 17-40 is well known for absolute suckage in the corners at f/4. Dial in a smaller aperture and it is more than worth the money.

    The 28 1.8 has no far-corner resolution at any aperture. In practice, this is almost never visible. Far corners are rarely overly analyzed at any aperture. At f/1.8 who is expecting sharp corners from any lens. The 28 1.8 is a stellar performer, in the center 90% of the frame, with excellent AF. It gets no love.

    The 24 and 40 STM's have atrocious vignetting. People love them for their size. What? Mount a 24 STM on your 7D2 and stuff that in your pants pocket. Ditto the 40 on a 1D-series body. That is almost as silly as a 600mm IS on a M-camera. Yep, it's pocketable, now!

    I recently moved my primary shooter from a 6D/24-105 STM to an 80D/18-135 USM. The new combo is better in every conceivable way than the old, with the exception of high-ISO results. I lost a 1+ stops of high-ISO goodness. I don't care; I rarely shoot above 6400, and the 80D is respectable at 12,800.


    Tom

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    RPCrowe
    Cream of the Crop
    Avatar
    7,962 posts
    Likes: 876
    Joined Nov 2005
    Location: San Diego County, California, USA
         
    Feb 21, 2018 22:36 |  #24

    Tom Reichner wrote in post #18569253 (external link)
    It seems so odd to me to hear (actually, read ..... but you know what I mean) these comments.

    This is because I remember years ago when the 40mm lens first came out there was a whole lot of like for it. . So why now the displeasure with it? . Is it that, perhaps, those who liked it so much maybe weren't very picky about optics?

    The same thing seemed to have happened with the 55-250mm EF-S lens ....... years ago people were all, like, praising this lens and saying what a great performer it was. . But now, people say things like "it wouldn't be my first choice" or "you can do a lot better" and stuff like that. . And they're saying this about the latest version of the 55-250, which is even better than the original version that they praised so highly.

    What gives? . Why the flip-flopping of collective sentiment regarding these lenses?

    .

    My comment about seldom using the 40mm f/2.8 doesn't knock that lens which is pretty good. However, using the 35mm f/2 IS lens, I gain an extra stop and IS capability which, IMO, makes this a really nice lens for low light shooting and for video.

    The lens IS combined with the 6D Mark ii in-camera IS (for video) makes hand holding and moving video shots a dream.


    See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    ssmanak
    Senior Member
    433 posts
    Likes: 7
    Joined Jun 2010
    Location: Chandigarh, India
    Post edited 5 months ago by ssmanak.
         
    Feb 26, 2018 09:32 |  #25

    Few days back at a safari I had 100-400mm on my 6Dii camera and 50f1.4 in my jacket pocket. I found it to be acceptable walk around solution for such situations. Now I am seriously considering to add 40mm stm lens to my kit as it will go in my trouser pocket also. 35IS is bigger than 50f1.4 mm lens and will not go in my jacket pocket..


    ss.manak
    EOS 6D ii, Canon 24-105f4 L ii, Canon 50 f1.4, Tamron 100-400 f4.5-6.3 VC, Canon 430EX

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    daleg
    Senior Member
    614 posts
    Gallery: 7 photos
    Likes: 106
    Joined Aug 2013
    Location: Maryland, USA
    Post edited 5 months ago by daleg. (4 edits in all)
         
    Feb 26, 2018 12:15 as a reply to  @ post 18552052 |  #26

    these are 2 useful/decent lenses.

    the 40/2.8 STM multitasks as a practical body cap - an easy to carry, pocketable 2nd lens/body cap. decent optics (never had a complaint) and 12" MFD. & with recessed optics, it doesn't need a hood. and on a crop body, it's an interesting 64mm FL.




      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    Tom ­ Reichner
    "I am a little creepy"
    Avatar
    12,154 posts
    Gallery: 140 photos
    Best ofs: 1
    Likes: 2923
    Joined Dec 2008
    Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
         
    Feb 26, 2018 12:18 |  #27

    daleg wrote in post #18572697 (external link)
    the 40/2.8 STM multitasks as a very practical lens cap.

    .
    I can't make sense of this.

    Did you happen to mean, "body cap"?

    .


    "Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
    "They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
    "Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    daleg
    Senior Member
    614 posts
    Gallery: 7 photos
    Likes: 106
    Joined Aug 2013
    Location: Maryland, USA
         
    Feb 26, 2018 12:27 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #28

    guilty as charged. thanks.

    need to engage brain before typing.




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

    3,782 views & 12 likes for this thread
    35is vs 40stm?
    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 rflynn
    656 guests, 292 members online
    Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

    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.