Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

msowsun wrote in post #15244862
50mm - 40mm = 10mm x 1.6 crop factor = 16mm

Thanks for the explanation Mike although i dont see the relevance. The difference between a 50mm lens and a 28mm lens is still 22mm. Why times the end result by 1.6 if you arent going to do the same with the original FL figures?

Sorry if im missing something here.

Ah hold on, ive just got it. Talk about complicate things.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15244856
I found even going from 17mm to 15mm on my 60D made a difference so i think 16mm wider will be quite a big difference.
what are all those figures about in the second paragraph? Where does the 16mm difference come from. 50 - 28 is 22mm, thats quite a difference.
I do agree that 40 and 50 are a bit too close. I know each lens can have its uses but id go for at least 35 or lower to make a real difference.

My bad, what i meant is that i want to buy the 28mm, but can't afford it, so i'm thinking of buying the 40mm.

BUT..

50mm = 80mm
40mm = 64mm
28mm = 45mm

So, my shortest focal in the bag now is 80mm (50mm 1.4, not counting the fisheye) and it would be a huge ifference if i bought the 28mm which is 45mm, then i would do a jump from 80mm to 45mm.. but since i can't afford it, would the 40mm (64mm) make a huge difference from 50 to 40?

Sorry if i can't explain any better..

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15244916
Ah hold on, ive just got it. Talk about complicate things.

Crop factor

Please stop doing the multiplication.

Your shortest in the bag is still a 50mm.

If you do want to play with "crop", then switch to discuss viewing angles instead, since it is they - not the mm - that suffers the scaling when the sensor captures a smaller cutout.

Anyway - when debating the difference between lenses, it is meaningless to talk mm. It is way better to consider quotients. 50/40 = 1.25. That gives an indication that the 40mm captures wider.

Why is 10mm irrelevant?

Well 30mm compared to 20mm is 30/20 = 1.5. So much wider view from the 20mm lens.
But 200mm compared to 190 mm is just 200/190 = 1.05. So very little difference.

And the good thing with the quotients is that they don't involve the sensor size. 100 compared to 200 is a factor 2 if 1.6x, 1.3x or FF sensor.

Yes - the sensor size matter when deciding what is wide enough. Problem is that "wide enough" is completely up to different people. So it must be the camera owner who decides how wide that is needed. Just that photos from a wider lens can be cropped. Photos with a too narrow lens have already cropped away some of the scene. And many scenes don't allow stitching in a reasonable way.

Since you only have one camera, it would make things a LOT easier for you if you stopped trying to talk in cropfactorese. Just use the real focal lengths.

You want something wider than 40mm even if it is a kit lens. My recommendation on a budget would be a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC even for a prime lover. There just aren't any wide prime options for APS-C, so you have to make do with zooms.

bent toe wrote in post #15244919
My bad, what i meant is that i want to buy the 28mm, but can't afford it, so i'm thinking of buying the 40mm.

BUT..

50mm = 80mm
40mm = 64mm
28mm = 45mm

So, my shortest focal in the bag now is 80mm (50mm 1.4, not counting the fisheye) and it would be a huge ifference if i bought the 28mm which is 45mm, then i would do a jump from 80mm to 45mm.. but since i can't afford it, would the 40mm (64mm) make a huge difference from 50 to 40?

Sorry if i can't explain any better..

bent toe wrote in post #15244921
Crap factor

Fixed it for you

pwm2 wrote in post #15245092
Fixed it for you

hahahahahhahahahahahah​ha... funny.. no really...

Hello

I have a 5D2. I had a 50/1.4 and miss this focal lens. I'm regarding to buy a new one. But all the hype about the 40 is making me want one. I would love a light, walkaround tiny lens. I thinked about the 50 to do this.

So since 50/1.4 is not really usable wide open, doesn't the 40 make the 50/1.4 redundant ?

It's funny, i bought this lens for testing out video and just playing around, but i find that i'm using it on every shoot i do, from studio to location. It feels like i'm using it more than my 24-70 even.

just chatting it up here - I did a shoot a week ago and in a shot of two people and a pooch posing I was trying to get the background blurred at around f/3.5 or so but nope.

Guess I needed to find a background further away behind them. I'd hoped it was already far back enough...

Anyone have examples of a two person portrait with bokeh? Cheers ~

Do you know if Canon launched a firmware update to correct peripherical illumination on the 5D2 ?

I's not a firmware update but if you install the latest version of Canon Utilities, you can add the 40mm 2.8 to the list of lenses with peripheral illumination correction on your 5D Mk II.

Immaculens wrote in post #15289739
just chatting it up here - I did a shoot a week ago and in a shot of two people and a pooch posing I was trying to get the background blurred at around f/3.5 or so but nope.

Guess I needed to find a background further away behind them. I'd hoped it was already far back enough...

Anyone have examples of a two person portrait with bokeh? Cheers ~

The closer you are to the subject; the more bokeh also.