Canon EF 40mm pancake

<p>I have been thinking of getting this lens. Will it have enough coverage for film cameras, or has it been designed for EOS digital bodies?</p>

<p>All EF lenses are full frame</p>

<p>In the Canon line-up, the alternative to the EF lenses that fit all Canon EOS cameras, are the ones labelled "EF-S" that are purposely engineered only to fit the later APS-C (aka "crop") format bodies.</p>

<p>With lenses for the EOS system made by other manufacturers, you have to look for words like "for digital and film cameras" or some such as opposed to "digital only".<br>

Third-party "crop body" lenses may physically mount on film and "full-frame" digital bodies, but will not cover the whole image plane (i.e., they will "vignette" - the corners or larger areas around the edges will be black).</p>

 

<p>The 40 is a super fun, "way too good for the price" lens. Canon sells the refurbs super cheap. Will work fine on any Canon EOS mount.</p>

<p>In what sense is it more fun than the 50/1.8? I know it's physically smaller, but the 50mm is over a stop faster and it's cheaper.</p>

<p>Unless you actually want 40mm rather than 50mm, I'd have thought the 50/1.8 is a more interesting lens.</p>

<p>For a couple reasons for me, at least. The IQ, to my eye, is much more pleasant, particularly with respect to OOF areas. Also, the irritating cheapish buzzing noise of the nifty 50 is thankfully a distant memory. Usually when I shot with the 50/1.8 I thought- Darn, I wish I had ponied up the cash for the 1.4. It isn't like the 40 makes me yearn for Voigtlander or anything.</p>

<p>I didn't really "want" 40mm for my FF rig, per se, but this lens is too cute to part with. Silly, I know, but there it is. IQ does kick the pants off the 50/1.8, though, crazy as it sounds.</p>

 

<p>It does sound crazy but maybe I'll try to add the 40/2.8 to the ever growing list of requests to Canon for lenses for review. If we can't get any of their expensive stuff, maybe they'll be able to afford a short loan of a 40/2.8 for us to look at. We (as in photo.net) do keep asking, so if you haven't seen too many Canon lenses reviewed recently, it's not for want of trying to get them.</p>

<p>That stinks, you'd think Canon would want to keep you guys enthusiastic as such would trickle down.<br>

Roger, Pres. @ Lensrentals is a big fan:<br>

"This is really an amazing lens. Little pancakes are cute and all, but usually aren’t of very good image quality. This one has exceptional image quality and does it at an amazing price. Probably the best bargain of a prime lens that exists, anywhere, for anything. <br>

<em>March, 2013"</em></p>

<p>I've always been impressed with my 50/1.8. I guess it's possible I got a good one, and it's the original MkI, but I've also tested a MkII which turned out to be pretty similar.</p>

<p>My main application for the 50/1.8 is as a portrait lens on APS-C, and there 50/1.8 is certainly more desirable than 40/2.8</p>

<p>Would be an interesting test to shoot them side by side. Maybe one day...</p>

<p>The 40mm is not as good for portraits and other images where you're trying to isolate the subject, but the IQ is better across the frame, and it's just a better quality product all around. It's not amazing, but it's better.</p>

<p>As far as 50mm being 'more interesting', I'd have to disagree. Generally the further you get from 50mm, the more various lens effects you have, and the more 'interesting' the lens becomes, without taking actual image quality and composition into account.</p>

<p>I think 40mm is much handier as a walking around lens. It's about as wide as you can go while still looking like a 'normal' lens in the photos. It makes street scenes and grab shots so much easier than with a 50mm, while the loss in aperture is basically irrelevant during the day.</p>

<p>I have to admit, the little 40mm f/2.8 has become one of my favorites for a couple of reasons. For one, I like that's it a bit wider...but not too wide. It's not only small, it's also light as a feather. I've not compared it head-to-head against any other but the resolution across the field, and contrast is superb. It reminds me of the micro contrast I get from my Zeiss Contax G lenses. It's excellent wide open but really sings at f/3.5 on a 5DMk2. The slower speed has not been an issue for me. Here are a couple of shots.</p><div></div>

<p>Excellent color and contrast</p><div></div>

I like the 40mm pancake a lot, and blogged a bit about it <a href=

"http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/2013/04/01/canon-40mm-pancake/">here.</a>

<p>Both the 40/2.8 and 50/1.8 weigh 130g according to Canon.</p>

The lens vingettes badly at f 2.8 on FF

digital and film bodies, especially

noticable indoors. It's much better for

APS sensors.

<p>It does exhibit vignetting, but I've not noticed it to be too distracting, and "badly" seems way harsh. It vignettes only slightly more than a 35/1.4L does at f2.0, and is pretty much on par with the EF35/2.0 wide open. Apples v oranges I guess, but in any case by f4.0 it is hardly noticeable on my copy. Maybe this lens is so cute I've become emotionally attached...</p>

<p>I've been tempted by it, but already have the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/1.8. Still, the idea of getting the new super small "Rebel" and this lens for a compact package (rather than a 'bridge' or P&S) is appealing.</p>

<p>One reason to get it if you are shooting video is the STM feature.</p>

<p>I love the 40 mm STM pancake. The focal length is perfect, not as wide as a 35 or as cramped as a 50. The STM 40 is sharp, compact, inexpensive, and it focuses reliably. An exceptional value.</p>

<p>Almost all reviews are positive but here is a dissenting voice - greatly preferring the Voigtlaender 40mm: http://fstoppers.com/the-better-pancake-voigtlander-ultron-40mm-f2-sl-ii</p>

<p>The 40mm has much better test shots than the 50/f1.8 when both are used at f/2.8. With lenses this inexpensive, YMMV.</p>

<p>It's really good. I want one! Very useful if you want to travel with a DSLR and minimal bulk.</p>