Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

pwm2 wrote in post #14619988
The lens is cheap. This thread have (right now) 46 pages of posts.

For some reason, I get the feeling the 40/2.8 is the biggest investment people will make this decennium.

With a quite low purchase price, the loss from buying, testing and potentially reselling should be quite low. No need to overanalyze everything in this world.

It would be more reasonable to see lots of people to worry about 300/2.8 Mk I or Mk II or maybe go for 400/2.8 Mk I or Mk II.

Or people considering 24-70 Mk I or Mk II.

With some of the old/new lenses, the price difference is huge so it really do matter a lot for the wallet which route to go.

Making a wrong purchase of a 40/2.8 is more like the "investment" of a cinema visit with popcorn and something to drink.

I hear your point. It seems like you're saying for roughly $200 usd the pancake is worth the risk and potential resale if the buyer simply does not like it. I agree and would say that's why I currently own it but would only say this... Some potential buyers aren't in a position to pick between the 1.8 50mm or this lens. That said I would suggest the f/1.8 50mm for anyone in that boat. Regardless of focal speed you're getting a sharper (just my opinion after using the 50 and owning the 40) and more open lens for half the price. So I see your point and see the other side too.


Bottom line, it I had to choose one lens between the two I'd go nifty fifty.

StandingInTimePhotogra​phy wrote in post #14619999
I hear your point. It seems like you're saying for roughly $200 usd the pancake is worth the risk and potential resale if the buyer simply does not like it. I agree and would say that's why I currently own it but would only say this... Some potential buyers aren't in a position to pick between the 1.8 50mm or this lens. That said I would suggest the f/1.8 50mm for anyone in that boat. Regardless of focal speed you're getting a sharper (just my opinion after using the 50 and owning the 40) and more open lens for half the price. So I see your point and see the other side too.


Bottom line, it I had to choose one lens between the two I'd go nifty fifty.

And the economic loss from getting both and use them for two weeks and evaluate before deciding if one (or both) should be resold would be quite low, as long as you live so you can manage the delivery of the unwanted lens without too expensive transports.

In the end, it's hard to make abstract decisions based on random text (46 pages of it) on a forum - comments written by other people with different views on what is needed/suitable/expect​ed/wanted.

For a lens of this price, it is meaningful to buy and experiment.

For a really expensive lens, it is meaningful to see if there is somewhere to rent it from.

But in the end, forum threads can't manage to completely replace actual hands-on experience.

So a number of people who do read all this information will be disappointed because what they read did not match what they experience when they get the lens in their hands. Hopefully, they can be less disappointed if they realize that the thread doesn't contain absolute answers but just gives a basic idea about the quality and usability of the lens, and that the final evaluation must be done by themselves if the lens sounds interesting enough.

ON FOCUSING SPEED/PERFORMANCE:

It depends! If you're in an office with overhead lighting or outdoors in daylight, I find the focus to be basically on par with my 50mm f/1.4, maybe a hair slower. This isn't a sports shooter, but it'll get the job done.

If you're in low-light, you're gonna need some patience. Paired with the fact that there's no mechanically-driven focus ring, you might have troubles.

If you've got a nifty fifty or a 50mm f/1.4, grab that when you're heading for the campfire.

If you're going on a treck across the world and space/weight is at a premium, this is really an awesome choice. It's cheap, it's fast, it's versatile (I'd argue the MOST versatile offering today for the price, especially when paired with a 12mm extension tube).

pwm2 wrote in post #14619988
The lens is cheap. This thread have (right now) 46 pages of posts.

For some reason, I get the feeling the 40/2.8 is the biggest investment people will make this decennium.

With a quite low purchase price, the loss from buying, testing and potentially reselling should be quite low. No need to overanalyze everything in this world.

It would be more reasonable to see lots of people to worry about 300/2.8 Mk I or Mk II or maybe go for 400/2.8 Mk I or Mk II.

Or people considering 24-70 Mk I or Mk II.

With some of the old/new lenses, the price difference is huge so it really do matter a lot for the wallet which route to go.

Making a wrong purchase of a 40/2.8 is more like the "investment" of a cinema visit with popcorn and something to drink.

Wondering why you quoted my post in your reply. You are basically saying exactly the point I was making but your reply makes it sound like I had the opposite of your view......

The reason I'm asking is because I'm considering the t4i and both STM lenses. That's a $1400 investment, not $200. I want to know if that is the route to go because I have little kids and pets. There aren't any threads on the 18-135mm STM right now so I'm asking about the 40mm. And maybe $200 to me is a lot. Maybe to you it's not.

Also, the reason I asked the questions multiple times is because people were giving answers that did not answer the question. So I re-worded the questions to make sure I was being clear.

Nobody has to stop what they're doing to answer my questions. It's up to them. And, by the way, I've taken plenty of time with new equipment to post samples, examples, etc., in different forums over the years because I'm often one of those "know-nothing" early adopters.

Also, I already was berated and I already apologized so why do you feel the need to continue to pour it on?

Thanks for this useful information.

Again, $200 to you may not be much, but to me it's significant. I guess I'm a pauper.

This is good advice, but focusing speed is something that is not subjective. It can easily be measured. That's why I was asking for a comparison. I know I can focus and get action shots with the nifty fifty but it's a lot more difficult than it is with my USM lenses. Anything with slower focusing speed than the nifty fifty probably won't suit my needs (and I'm also thinking of the 18-135mm STM lens as well to replace my current kit lens). Because if these lenses can't even focus as fast as the very slow nifty fifty, then they'll really disappoint a lot of people who get them to replace their current kits. But interestingly enough, I recently learned that the 40mm and the 18-135mm STM lenses have completely different focusing motors. So my research of the 40mm may not be doing me much good anyway as my everyday lens would likely be the 18-135. http://www.usa.canon.c​om …y/Lens_Advantag​e_Perf#usm

If this is true, it'll be fast enough for me, especially considering that the 18-135mm STM will be even faster. Your comments are also in line with Roger's over at lensrentals who said (regarding focus speed), I’d put it about the same as the 18-55 IS kit lens / Canon 50 f/1.4 lens category. Not lightning, but it moves along well.

Thanks for the good information everyone and again, sorry for my impatience!

theviper wrote in post #14621129
Wondering why you quoted my post in your reply. You are basically saying exactly the point I was making but your reply makes it sound like I had the opposite of your view......

Quoting doesn't mean people have to disagree. Sometimes people want to expand on something.

saladbowl wrote in post #14621178
Again, $200 to you may not be much, but to me it's significant. I guess I'm a pauper.

I have never said $200 is insignificant. If you do read my text again, I say that the monetary loss from buying the lens and then reselling it, if not happy, represents a quite small loss. If you estimate a loss of $200 from reselling a 40/2.8, that would mean you believe that it can't be resold at anything better than shipping costs.

That is a statement open for debate.

Two lenses don't need to have a fixed factor different focus speed, so you can't just make a single measurement of speed fron MFD to infinity or from MFD to lock on a subject 10 meters away and have that represent an absolute measurement of focus speed.

Another thing - it isn't really so easy to measure focus speed. Use a microphone to records the sounds of the camera? And that still requires that the camera always sees a subject with good contrast allowing it to tell the lens to make this one, big, jump to the expected target distance.

Quite reasonable - the 18-135 are likely to need to move much bigger masses, so it would need either a stronger motor or have the same small motor turn many more turns to perform a full-range movement. But the two lenses could potentially have similar timing even when having different motors. It's just that different lenses are always different - it is never enough to know type of AF motor solution to know how fast they are.

saladbowl wrote in post #14621178
The reason I'm asking is because I'm considering the t4i and both STM lenses. That's a $1400 investment, not $200. I want to know if that is the route to go because I have little kids and pets. There aren't any threads on the 18-135mm STM right now so I'm asking about the 40mm. And maybe $200 to me is a lot. Maybe to you it's not.

I think you are misconstruing the word "investment". An investment is something you supply monetary units for with the intention of receiving more than what was initially contributed. I dropped $4,000 on a new moped a couple of weeks ago, purely as a recreational vehicle, but I do not consider it an investment. Your $1,400 for photography gear is not an investment; it's consumer discretionary income that you are hesitant to spend.

This board is fantastic at bringing together professionals and amateurs alike, but one of the biggest reasons for thread-by-thread conflict such as this is the fact that for amateurs, what they spend isn't being recouped through the use of said spent discretionary income. Hence why the term "investment" is inappropriate. The new car you bought isn't an investment, because if it was it would be the dumbest investment you ever made since it depreciates on a daily basis. Such products for consumers are more depreciating assets than anything else, and might as well just be considered a liability.

For professionals, we make our money back the second we pull the equipment out at a shoot. That's an investment since we are yielding a return.

Sorry for the rambling, I think context sometimes needs to be adjusted. Comparing an amateur's perspective to a pro's prospective is comparing apples to oranges.

mritchy wrote in post #14622687
I think you are misconstruing the word "investment". An investment is something you supply monetary units for with the intention of receiving more than what was initially contributed.

but how do you judge how much being able to take good photos is worth...if you put it in monetary units...then it could be considered an 'investment'

the fact that i can take pictures of my nieces and nephews doesn't instantly translate to monetary units...but say i charged how much a portrait photographer would...then i can give it a monetary unit value...either way...investments don't have to be as cut and dry as people make them out to be...

pwm2 wrote in post #14621189
Quoting doesn't mean people have to disagree. Sometimes people want to expand on something.

Cool

mritchy wrote in post #14622687
I think you are misconstruing the word "investment".

And some people seem overly pedantic.

Bought it yesterday because I wanted a small affordable AF lens again (my other lenses are all MF zeiss).
I'm quite happy with it so far. A few positives:

- Sharp wide open
- Good build quality
- Quiet enough
- Decent AF which hardly hunts

michaeldorian wrote in post #14618168
SIZE MATTERS. At least to me in the real world. At this price this thing is a GEM. The camera just feels so much easier to carry and I want to take it more places. Which means more photos. I'm very impressed with the sharpness. I think this will become the lens that will be attached to my camera 80% of the time. It's like a fancy camera cap.

Some people say the size is not that much smaller then some 35MM lens but it is significant in real life. Think 13in Macbook Pro vs 13in. Just that bit smaller changes the experience.

Exactly. Some people seem to want this lens to be all things to all people - large aperture, fast focussing, etc. The point of it, for me anyway, is that it is very flat and makes it a lot more convenient to carry my camera around doing' street' type shots, and it's quite un-intimidating when shooting people.

I am torn about it.

Part of me really appreciates the added level of portability the pancake would give my 5DII. On other side, I see $200 as a 10% deposit on the 24-70L MkII.

I will probably go to my local camera store and slap it on for giggles.

I see it as a compact lens that is a very short telephoto. It is a bit long for general use, and for that the 35 mm focal length is better on a crop. It would be a good focal length on a full frame body, if that is what one has.
For a crop body, I wouln't really want one - I already have 35 and 50mm lenses. My own view is that there is never a need to rush lens purchases. I'd wait for reviews to see if the STM lenses do what I want.
Money matters to many of us, and these lenses might be cost effective buys.