35is vs 40stm?

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18552073
If you need the small size keep the 40.

The conventional wisdom back in the days of film was that if the FL difference was not by a factor of at least 20%, it was not worth owning a lens on the basis of FL alone. So other factors, like relative size/weight might make two similar FL lenses worth owning, as you might prefer size over other advantages at different times. Some of the other criteria worth pondering

• f/2 vs. f/2.8
  
• how much you prefer to use moderate wide 35mm FL over a more 'normal' FL (if FF)
  
• how much you prefer to use 'normal' 35mm FL over a short tele FL (if used on APS-C)
  
• if shooting video, STM better due to lower noise while focusing
  
• IS capable lens vs. not
  

Wilt wrote in post #18552349

if shooting video, STM better due to lower noise while focusing

This is only true for some STM lenses. Frankly the 40 STM & 50 STM are noisy. No quieter than the sound of USM. You can plainly hear them. The 18-55 STM however is dead silent and you cannot hear it.

Not all STM are the same for silence with respect to audio recording during video.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18552350
This is only true for some STM lenses. Frankly the 40 STM & 50 STM are noisy. No quieter than the sound of USM. You can plainly hear them. The 18-55 STM however is dead silent and you cannot hear it.

Not all STM are the same for silence with respect to audio recording during video.

Very best,

I would even say that my 50mm STM, at least, is actually noisier than the USM motor on my 35mm f/2 IS.. It's a surprisingly noisy and annoying whining kind of sound. And it's definitely not as usable for video as other STM lenses. The quietest lens I own is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. It's almost as silent as the most quiet STM lenses.

mwsilver wrote in post #18552363
I would even say that my 50mm STM, at least, is actually noisier than the USM motor on my 35mm f/2 IS.. It's a surprisingly noisy and annoying whining kind of sound. And it's definitely not as usable for video as other STM lenses. The quietest lens I own is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. It's almost as silent as the most quiet STM lenses.

Agree, the 40 STM & 50 STM so far have been the noisiest of the STM's I've used. Even the 24 F2.8 STM is noisy. Those pancake versions are just not the same as the ones in the zooms.

Very best,

My 35 f/2 IS produces higher contrast and better colors than my 40 stm. I sold the 40.

TWO THINGS:

1. The 35mm f/2 IS is a great video lens on my 6D Mark ii. I don't record with the in camera mike so focusing sound is no problem. The IS of the lens combined with the in camera IS (for video) is really nice.

2. On a 1.6x crop camera, the 35mm, at 56mm equivalent is (IMO) a better and more natural focal length than the 64mm equivalent of the 40mm. I think that a 35mm f/2.8 STM lens might have sold better.

3. (I lied when I said two things) the extra stop of the f/2 lens can often save the day in shooting under low light conditions. The 6D Mark ii with 35mm f/2.0 IS lens is my favorite low light combination...

BTW: I own both lenses and seldom use the 40mm for either video or stills since I got the 35mm f/2.0 IS.

n1as wrote in post #18558244
My 35 f/2 IS produces higher contrast and better colors than my 40 stm. I sold the 40.

RPCrowe wrote in post #18560323
I own both lenses and seldom use the 40mm for either video or stills since I got the 35mm f/2.0 IS.

It seems so odd to me to hear (actually, read ..... but you know what I mean) these comments.

This is because I remember years ago when the 40mm lens first came out there was a whole lot of like for it. . So why now the displeasure with it? . Is it that, perhaps, those who liked it so much maybe weren't very picky about optics?

The same thing seemed to have happened with the 55-250mm EF-S lens ....... years ago people were all, like, praising this lens and saying what a great performer it was. . But now, people say things like "it wouldn't be my first choice" or "you can do a lot better" and stuff like that. . And they're saying this about the latest version of the 55-250, which is even better than the original version that they praised so highly.

What gives? . Why the flip-flopping of collective sentiment regarding these lenses?

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18569253
It seems so odd to me to hear (actually, read ..... but you know what I mean) these comments.

This is because I remember years ago when the 40mm lens first came out there was a whole lot of like for it. . So why now the displeasure with it? . Is it that, perhaps, those who liked it so much maybe weren't very picky about optics?

The same thing seemed to have happened with the 55-250mm EF-S lens ....... years ago people were all, like, praising this lens and saying what a great performer it was. . But now, people say things like "it wouldn't be my first choice" or "you can do a lot better" and stuff like that. . And they're saying this about the latest version of the 55-250, which is even better than the original version that they praised so highly.

What gives? . Why the flip-flopping of collective sentiment regarding these lenses?

.

There is a lot of emotion involved in what folks think of lenses. Consider the 300mm f/4L IS USM, the 70-300L, and the 100-400Lc.
Check out the data at PZ.de. At 300mm and all wide open, the 100-400Lc is sharper, with less distortion, and less vignetting than either of the other lenses. The 300, and the 70-300L are both holding their values quite well. Prices on used 100-400Lc lenses are in the toilet. The 100-400Lc gets slammed for it AI-Servo AF performance. I've used it for sports/athletics on a 1D3 and 1D4 with great success; never had an OOF shot I could blame on the camera lens. The 70-300 is stellar at 70mm. The 300mm prime offers only f/4, where it isn't as good as the 100-400L at f/5.6. Seems to me the zoom is way more versatile.

The 17-40 is well known for absolute suckage in the corners at f/4. Dial in a smaller aperture and it is more than worth the money.

The 28 1.8 has no far-corner resolution at any aperture. In practice, this is almost never visible. Far corners are rarely overly analyzed at any aperture. At f/1.8 who is expecting sharp corners from any lens. The 28 1.8 is a stellar performer, in the center 90% of the frame, with excellent AF. It gets no love.

The 24 and 40 STM's have atrocious vignetting. People love them for their size. What? Mount a 24 STM on your 7D2 and stuff that in your pants pocket. Ditto the 40 on a 1D-series body. That is almost as silly as a 600mm IS on a M-camera. Yep, it's pocketable, now!

I recently moved my primary shooter from a 6D/24-105 STM to an 80D/18-135 USM. The new combo is better in every conceivable way than the old, with the exception of high-ISO results. I lost a 1+ stops of high-ISO goodness. I don't care; I rarely shoot above 6400, and the 80D is respectable at 12,800.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18569253
It seems so odd to me to hear (actually, read ..... but you know what I mean) these comments.

This is because I remember years ago when the 40mm lens first came out there was a whole lot of like for it. . So why now the displeasure with it? . Is it that, perhaps, those who liked it so much maybe weren't very picky about optics?

The same thing seemed to have happened with the 55-250mm EF-S lens ....... years ago people were all, like, praising this lens and saying what a great performer it was. . But now, people say things like "it wouldn't be my first choice" or "you can do a lot better" and stuff like that. . And they're saying this about the latest version of the 55-250, which is even better than the original version that they praised so highly.

What gives? . Why the flip-flopping of collective sentiment regarding these lenses?

.

My comment about seldom using the 40mm f/2.8 doesn't knock that lens which is pretty good. However, using the 35mm f/2 IS lens, I gain an extra stop and IS capability which, IMO, makes this a really nice lens for low light shooting and for video.

The lens IS combined with the 6D Mark ii in-camera IS (for video) makes hand holding and moving video shots a dream.

Few days back at a safari I had 100-400mm on my 6Dii camera and 50f1.4 in my jacket pocket. I found it to be acceptable walk around solution for such situations. Now I am seriously considering to add 40mm stm lens to my kit as it will go in my trouser pocket also. 35IS is bigger than 50f1.4 mm lens and will not go in my jacket pocket..

these are 2 useful/decent lenses.

the 40/2.8 STM multitasks as a practical body cap - an easy to carry, pocketable 2nd lens/body cap. decent optics (never had a complaint) and 12" MFD. & with recessed optics, it doesn't need a hood. and on a crop body, it's an interesting 64mm FL.

daleg wrote in post #18572697
the 40/2.8 STM multitasks as a very practical lens cap.

.
I can't make sense of this.

Did you happen to mean, "body cap"?

.

guilty as charged. thanks.

need to engage brain before typing.

Couple of other things to consider:

1) 40mm is a different view. To me, it's more natural than 35mm and 50mm.
2) The 40mm STM images look more "rounded", to me. The 35mm USM IS images look kinda "flat" and 2-dimensional in comparison, to me.

The old EF 35mm f/2 version w/out IS delivers much more natural looking, "rounder" images than either of the above, for my taste.

The 35/2 IS is the kind of lens that makes me wonder who was asleep over at Canon, because it smashes their normal price for performance stratification.