40mm f/2.8 STM is insanely good

I don't regret buying mine. Its small size on the 6D (which is quite petite) makes it ideal for traveling light. Image quality seems equal or better than my EF 50mm f/1.8.

Thanks for the info I think you have convinced me to buy this instead of the 50 1.8 ha

Vendee wrote in post #17447801
I don't regret buying mine. Its small size on the 6D (which is quite petite) makes it ideal for traveling light. Image quality seems equal or better than my EF 50mm f/1.8.

tjb5099 wrote in post #17447978
Thanks for the info I think you have convinced me to buy this instead of the 50 1.8 ha

I think apart from the f2.8 vs f1.8, it's far superior to the 50 1.8 in every way. Build quality is light years ahead - this lens isn't gonna fall apart like the 50 1.8 sometimes does. AF is in a different class and IQ IMO is for sure better.

As mentioned my copy is noticeably sharper than the 24-105L and 50L (although the 50L has nicer colour, contrast and is obviously f1.2). I've owned every AF 50mm prime available for Canon and the 40 2.8 is sharper corner to corner than all of them except the Sigma 50 1.4 Art. The bokeh is less distracting than that of the 5-bladed 50 1.8, and smoother and more pleasing than the ugly bokeh of lenses like the EF 50 1.4 and 24-105L.

As you can tell I quite like this lens! It deserves its place as the only non-L lens in my Canon kit.

I have this lens and love it, very sharp pictures fast focus. I've enjoyed it so much I'm tempted to buy the 24mm STM next.

Perry Ge wrote in post #17445616
It's worth it for the size alone. Both have a place in the bag since the Siggy is 2 stops faster, but [...] that "Art" lens is massive for a 50mm prime.

That is so true!! Very temped to have a closer look at the STM.

jhartley wrote in post #17448720
I have this lens and love it, very sharp pictures fast focus. I've enjoyed it so much I'm tempted to buy the 24mm STM next.

I've thought of doing the same. I too love te 40mm. I would like to get the 24mm even though I own a 12-24mm. The only drawback I've read on different forums is bad barrell distortion and edge to edge sharpness. Not sure what I'm going to do yet.

I just purchased a SL1 so I can put the pancake on that! Excellent lightweight combo

the lens is technically excellent, however I do use the nifty fifty more often.

Reason being is that when I use this lens, it's likely because I'm shooting handheld as a walkabout lens, critical wide open sharpness is not a high priority as the ability to blur backgrounds (50 1.8).

contrast and sharpness, better than most older L glass if I have to be honest. If it were f2 or faster, I wouldnt even bother with a 50 1.2 or even the 50mm focal length.

What took you so long! this is the best affordable lens around. Absolutely love it.
Makes the old Nifty look positively pants.

I'd get the 24mm, but I don't have an APS-c to use it on.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17446161
While everything really does favor the 40 f2.8. Sometimes that extra stop and a third that the 50 F1.8 II has is more important for the user (for light & depth of field purposes).

Yup. I shot a small indoor concert a few months ago and the extra aperture made all the difference between hand-holding the shot and not getting it. Subject was centered, too, so the corners weren't an issue. Each lens has its application.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17449171
What took you so long! this is the best affordable lens around. Absolutely love it.
Makes the old Nifty look positively pants.

I'd get the 24mm, but I don't have an APS-c to use it on.

Good question Jake! I think it took me so long because I've been shooting Olympus M4/3 whenever I need compact size.

After reading many glowing reviews of this lens, I realized it could dramatically increase the portability of my 5D, and give me a more flexible kit when birding because I can just slap the 400L on and stick this in my pocket. It was a no-brainer, and definitely puts the old nifty to shame. Plus you can get it for only USD$120 brand new here in Hong Kong.

Paid $100 new for mine back when DPreview had that gearstore thing with $50 off codes which worked with the $150 discounted price.

Haven't used it a ton but it's a fantastic little lens.

Completely agree - I love mine to bits. Notwithstanding its amazing performance and value, it enables me to pack the 5D3 in a tight, neoprene case and carry it in my backpack every day without any fuss. Given the choice I'd rather use my 50L, but if I look out of the office and see sunlight at lunchtime, I'm very glad to have that wee 40mm with me.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17446150
Do eet! It's fantastic. I prefer the 35 IS, but it costs 4x as much.

artyH wrote in post #17447631
The 40F2.8 doesn't really interest me. I have the Canon 35F2IS, and it is sharp and fast. I also have the Sigma 50F2.8 macro lens. If a prime lens is only f2.8, I want it to be a macro lens, unless it is long or a zoom. While the 40 is sharp, no doubt, so are the other options in my bag.
It is unfortunate that Canon doesn't make an IS version of their 50. That would be a draw for me.

I'm with you guys on this one. I have the 35 IS and the 40 STM...and the 40 hasn't been touched since I got the 35 IS. Actually, I have it listed in the marketplace here . I agree that it's a better lens than the nifty fifty, though. I like it more than my 50 f1.4 that I sold as well, but it just doesn't beat the 35 IS's performance. The only reason I'm reluctant to sell is its compact size, but the 35 IS plus lens hood is still small enough to fit into my smallest camera bag.

That 50mm 1.8 is a good lens, though. I got it new for $115 bucks the other day. I must have gotten a good one, because this lens does not disappoint.