Want to add/replace a cheap prime: 40mm 2.8 or 50mm 1.8 STM?

Canon bodies I have are 6D and SL1. Prime lenses I currently have are the 24mm stm (for the SL1), 50mm 1.8 ii, and 85mm 1.8.

I am looking to add or replace a cheap prime. I could buy the 40mm 2.8, or replace my 50mm ii with the new STM model. What would make more sense?

I'd primarily use this with my SL1, not the 6D. So basically I'd pair it with my SL1 when walking around/ traveling to give me more reach than the 24mm would.

The new STM is ten times better than the II. I love that lens. Even better than the EF 50mm 1.4, in my opinion.

I personally don't think 40 vs 50mm is a big enough difference and wouldn't be happy going from f/1.8 to f//2.8. That said there are a number of people here who are in love with the 40 and it is cheap.

How do you feel about fisheyes?

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17786237
Canon bodies I have are 6D and SL1. Prime lenses I currently have are the 24mm stm (for the SL1), 50mm 1.8 ii, and 85mm 1.8.

I am looking to add or replace a cheap prime. I could buy the 40mm 2.8, or replace my 50mm ii with the new STM model. What would make more sense?

I'd primarily use this with my SL1, not the 6D. So basically I'd pair it with my SL1 when walking around/ traveling to give me more reach than the 24mm would.

Heya,

I have the 40 STM and 50 STM. They're different enough that I can warrant having both. The 40 is a pancake, it's slower, no lens hood really, but it is the one I take when I want the lowest profile and simplicity. I also just leave it as a body cap on any camera where ever too. The 50 STM is faster and has a big lens hood. Totally different lens profile. The aperture is significant at these focal lengths. I prefer the 50 STM for it's aperture and sharpness. Great lens. I prefer the 40's look on full frame. I like the 50 STM on both full frame & APS-C & APS-H.

I think the 24 STM & 50 STM are a great pair on APS-C. That's basically very similar to a 35/85 setup on full frame. Again I do both, and I find that works for me. It all comes down to what works for you.

Very best,

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17786270
I personally don't think 40 vs 50mm is a big enough difference and wouldn't be happy going from f/1.8 to f//2.8. That said there are a number of people here who are in love with the 40 and it is cheap.

How do you feel about fisheyes?

Never shoot wide.

Personally, I never get used to 50 on crop. Took it to abroad trip only once. Too narrow for travel and walkaround. 24 gives 40 on crop which is norm and will do it all as one and only lens.
But if you like to use tele as main lens 40 or 50 are about the same.
To me compactness is big factor for walkaround, travel.
So, it would 40 2.8. But if main purpose of the lens is for not environmental, but still portraits and for photos of separate objects it is call for 1.8.

I have the 40mm and the 50mm II. I love both, use the 40mm more because 50mm is a bit long on crop. With that being said, ive recently got through my catalog and there is something very nice about the 50mm images. I happen to think I have a very sharp copy of the 50.

So I purchased the 50mm 1.8 STM. Maybe I'm just having bad luck with the store I'm going to, but I already exchanged one out (as soon as I bought it and inspected it at home) because the lens didn't seem quite "new". Not sure if it's because it's a $125 lens that Canon is churning out nonstop, or I did happen to get a unit that was returned and the store was passing off as new. But it had more dust on the front and rear elements than I remember any new lens having, and the machining on the metal mount didn't look very smooth/polished. Almost like the lens had been mounted several times.

And my 2nd lens doesn't look much better either, quite a bit of dust. Debating whether to keep it or try exchanging one more time. I don't remember other cheap Canon lenses having this issue (my 24mm stm was pristine when I bought it), so I think it might be the store.

Sorry to hear your getting problem copies. That's no fun at all.

You can't go wrong.

A few months back I would have been telling you to get the 40mm because the focus on the old 50mm was pants.

But the new 50 STM is really fantastic. The two STMs focus the same now, accurately, fast and quiet.

So it's matter of if you want f/1.8 for bokeh, subject isolation and low light, or slightly, and I do mean slightly more portability and slightly wider F.O.V.

Needless to day, I have both now.

maverick75 wrote in post #17786241
The new STM is ten times better than the II. I love that lens. Even better than the EF 50mm 1.4, in my opinion.

Would you swap a 50 1.4 for the STM to get better focus accuracy? I'm debating and will probably just go to a store at some point, but while the 1.4 is fast focusing it isn't always accurate in lower-light (say ISO6400, f2, 1/125 s) and I sometimes have to re-take shots.

I really like the 40mm pancake lens. I haven't tried the new 50, but I have heard good things. The 40 takes great pictures.

Having only recently gotten back into Canon AF lenses with Sony having updated their A7ii to include PDAF, which works a treat, I was in the same boat. I went into a local store and going in I was probably leaning towards the 40, but after putting the 50 STM on in the shop, I saw the focus was quiet, accurate and it is just that bit faster at f1.8. Having used it for a few days now, no regrets, it's a keeper. It focuses very well in pretty low light, maybe I lucked in with my copy, but it is a nice lens. I had previously owned the 40, and it is also a sharp lens, but it is f2.8. That's not too shabby, and maybe your preference in focal length should sway you more so. I'd buy the 50 STM, because it's just that bit faster, can't really go wrong either way, both are good lenses.