Which lens is optically better, the 40mm pancake or the Nifty Fifty?

The advantages of the 40mm pancake are obvious: very small, inexpensive, silent autofocus.

The advantages of the nifty fifty: fairly small, great optics, very inexpensive.


My concern, since they are both cheap and since I don't do video (stm not important to me), is which lens is better optically?


That's my primary focus (no pun intended): Optics.

This will be mounted on a 6D.

Thanks

I have both. It's really hard to say if you're being fair about it. I've taken amazingly sharp photos with both. You lose aperture with the pancake and build with the 50. THe build is noticeable. Also you get STM wih the 40. I bought the 50 first and added the 50 later on. They're really cheap enough to keep both. On crop it's also nice having wider 10mm. It's a tossup, because the 50mm takes some good looking shots. I can't help further than this.

http://www.photozone.d​e …52-canon_40_28_ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.d​e …15-canon_50_18_ff?start=1

I'd say optically the two lenses are comparable at f2.8 and up - 40mm has slightly higher resolution at the edges at f2.8, but 50mm becomes better at f5.6-f8. Also, 50mm has 0.6 stops less vignetting than 40mm at f2.8.

I think the only reason to choose 50mm over 40mm on FF is if you plan to use it a lot at f1.8-f2.8. An because the blades are not circular on 50mm, you better find it useful at almost open (f2.2 and down).

From my personal experience on a crop camera, 50mm is very useful (as a light travel portrait lens) starting around f2.2.

I suggest you test 50mm around f1.8-f2.2 to see if it works for you. On the other hand, it is so cheap, you probably can just by it secondhand for almost nothing, and you can always sell it with no loss.

What I'm really interested in is color and pop. Getting both color and contrast right makes such a big difference. If both are good at this, I'll likely go for the 40mm.

As far as Bokeh, if I have to stop down on a lens I just compensate through subject/background separation. In a controlled environment it works out about the same if it's only a stop or so.

I used to own the 50 f/1.8, and currently own the 40mm pancake. The 50 was decent once it was stopped down, but was soft until around f/2.8. The auto focus performance of the 50 was terrible, while the pancake's AF performance is quite good -- a little slower than a ring USM lens, but very accurate. When you add in the better build quality and smaller size, the 40mm pancake is a much better lens, IMO.

At wide open, and at apertures wider than 3.2, I would say the 40mm is sharper. At 4.0 and smaller, the 50mm is sharper to much sharper. Also, it looks to me as though the 50mm has less light drop-off, which would have some effect on color and contrast.

I used this to make that assumption.

i do have both, and like both, but really never use either. If I was only going to keep one, I think it would be the 50mm (MkI), simply for the extra stops it allows.

40/2.8

Scott M wrote in post #16655235
I used to own the 50 f/1.8, and currently own the 40mm pancake. The 50 was decent once it was stopped down, but was soft until around f/2.8. The auto focus performance of the 50 was terrible, while the pancake's AF performance is quite good -- a little slower than a ring USM lens, but very accurate. When you add in the better build quality and smaller size, the 40mm pancake is a much better lens, IMO.

I agree with the blue, but the red I only agree with if you are talking about the Mark II of the fifty. The Mark I is (as we all know) built considerably better. But with either of the 50's, the AF is slow and noisy, but in my experiences, accurate.

I only bought the 40mm after reading so much wonderfulness about it (I needed another lens like a hole in the head). I thought for sure it would blow the doors off the 50mm MkI. While it's a very good lens, I still think I'd keep the MkI over it.

Here are a couple of examples of good quality travel photos made with with 50mm f1.8 lens Mk I (both at f2.5), a few years back while traveling overseas. I like colors and contrast, the bokeh is very decent for f2.5, sharpness is great, and AF was almost always spot on (despite the severe AF limitations of the camera - Canon XS):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

See for yourself!

From f1.8 to f2.8 the nifty is clearly ahead...

At f2.8-f4 I think the 40 is better.

After f4, I think they are indistinguishable, maybe the nifty is slightly ahead. At this point it doesn't matter.

They're both so cheap, you can buy both.

I think there is a lot of variation in the 50s. Its Canon's cheapest lens and I doubt that the QC guy is throwing many in the Rejected bin.

I can't believe someone said the nifty fifty has "great optics". I think that lens is a piece of junk and I gave mine away for free when I sold my old camera.

Not only is the 40mm better in almost every way, it's also more consistent, which is hugely important.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image%2fpng'

I think calling the 50 1.8 a "piece of junk" is a bit of a stretch, Luke. Sure it may not have the best build quality, but you are not going to find a better lens for $100 USD. There may be come copy variation but that goes for many lenses that do not get labeled "junk".

OP, if you don't plan on using the 50 at 2.8 and larger, then I would go for the 40. My copy of the 50 is sharp from 2.0 on and I have made some great photos with it.

You're right, that was some extreme hyperbole, but I simply can't recommend that lens to anybody.

If Canon owners want a cheap lens, the 40mm pancake is a vastly superior option.

mclaren777 wrote in post #16655373
I can't believe someone said the nifty fifty has "great optics". I think that lens is a piece of junk and I gave mine away for free when I sold my old camera.

LOL
some think the 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the 50mm 1.4!

http://www.adorama.com …lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14

Rebel XSi /450D
50mm 1.8 mkII (cheap junk)
f2.5