Smallest Lens for a 40D - Any Advice?

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm new to the world of Canon glass and I need some help finding the smallest - shortest lens for a 40D. Off brands are ok, but some advice on a lens from Canon would be great also. Speed and focal length of the lens does not matter (although I'm guessing the focal length would fall somewhere between 16-50mm), this lens would be mainly used for travel pics and as an ocasional light meter for my Hassy. Thanks a bunch!</p>

<p>The "nifty fifty" (50mm 1.8 prime) is the smallest I have seen. A really sharp performer, though cheaply made, it sells for $80 or so.</p>

<p>I did not compare datas, but I would guess the 28mm 2.8 to be almost as small. And it gives 44 mm on a 40D.<br>

I love mine when I want to travel light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Both of the above are also the cheapest (the 50mm) and close to the cheapest lenses that Canon makes. The fact that they have wonderful image quality makes them huge bargains and at least one of them should be in every Canon owner's kit. More expensive, but also a bargain is the 35mm f/2.0.</p>

<p>If you are really desperate you can also adapt manual focus pancake lenses if you want the absolutely smallest lens possible. The PK 40mmm f/2.8 or Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 come to mind.</p>

<p><strong>Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6mm IS</strong> is the way to go if you want versatility and small size. AT $170, it's quite cheap for a lens too.</p>

<p>It seems like the #F 35mm f/2 should also be on the list.</p>

<p>Thanks for the great responses! One question on using a Nikkor manual focus lens, do you know if an EOS 40D will meter with them? I know you have to get to atleast a D200 with Nikon before they will meter with a manual focus lens. On a side note...just using Sunny 16 with a little bracketing would probably get one close enough to the right exposure. Thanks again!</p>

<p>I agree with Sinh. The 18-55 IS is a pretty sharp little lens and would give you a lot of versatility. The IS on it also performs quite well. It and the 50/1.8 are very cheaply built. The 50/1.8 is the superior lens optically, but the 18-55 IS really isn't bad. Its only problem is moderate chromatic aberration, which can be corrected fairly well with DPP. You can pick one up refurbished for around $100, and they are offered as the kit lenses for many cameras. The reason I have one of these (and the only reason) is that it is small, light, and cheap/expendible.</p>

<p>I would strongly advise against using a non-native lens (e.g. Nikkor manual) for travel pics and general use. You can do it, of course, but it's often slow and tedious, particularly with regard to focusing. I adapt old lenses myself, but I usually do this only for tripod work and unusual projects. If you choose to go this route, though, your 40D will do the necessary stop-down metering for you to achieve autoexposure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One question on using a Nikkor manual focus lens, do you know if an EOS 40D will meter with them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All EOS cameras meter with all lenses -- native and adapted. At least in the more important AE modes like Av and M (and eTTL flash also works flawlessly!). Quite a few of us use adapted lenses, and Nikon gear works very well. The only drawback is that you have to stop down the aperture manually, making the viewfinder image darker. There are also adapters with electronics available that work with the cameras' Focus Confirmation feature.</p>

<p>But for most accurate light metering duty I would advise getting a modern incident meter like the Sekonic L-508. If a dSLR is already too big for you, get a high-end digicam for your travel photography (i.e., Canon G10, Ricoh GX200, Panasonic LX3).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The "nifty fifty" (50mm 1.8 prime) is the smallest I have seen. A really sharp performer, though cheaply made, it sells for $80 or so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While the "nifty fifty" is petite, it isn't the smallest and is a bit long as a walkaround on APS format. Both the EF 28 2.8 and EF 35 2.0 are smaller, better made (metal mount, distance window & MF ring), sharper and closer to a normal perspective. Personally I've used the EF 35 2.0 on my 10D, 20D, 40 and now 50D as a walkaround for many years and have been pleased with both its performance and petiteness. </p>

<p>Too bad Canon doesn't have a 28 or 35mm pancake (like Pentax). I used to own a Nikkor 45 2.8 P and my FM3A looked it was only wearing a body cap...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"All EOS cameras meter with all lenses -- native and adapted. At least in the more important AE modes like Av and M (and eTTL flash also works flawlessly!)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe this is not correct for some Elan 7s, which meter incorrectly with adpated lenses. </p>

<p>Canon 35/2.0.</p>

<p>Light, sharp, small, inexpensive, fast, and unlike adapted lenses, it autofocuses, which as Sarah says can be extremely handy when trying to get grabshots while traveling.</p>

<p>I have the 28 & 50 canon and the equiv Oly 28 & 50 1.4, they are smaller and sharper a lil heavier, but as pointed out not as easy and quick to focus, tho you could insert a split level screen and use focus confirmation adapters. still many including me have been down this track and the novelty wears of quick. It is an alternative for lacks of funds. I`d go along with the 35 f2. Also Hassy lenses work well on the 40d. I use mine occasionaly and with ext tubes.. have fun :)</p>

<p><em>"I'm new to the world of Canon glass and I need some help finding the smallest -<strong> shortest lens</strong> for a 40D."</em><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><em><strong>"While the "nifty fifty" is petite, it isn't the smallest and is a bit long as a walkaround on APS format. Both the EF 28 2.8 and EF 35 2.0 are smaller"</strong></em><br /><br /><br />Maybe we are picking nits, or maybe Puppy Face was not talking length, specifically? <br />But if a mm or two is important . . . :<br />My data sheets say:<br />The 28/F2.8 is 42.5mm long<br />The 35/F2 is 42.5mm long<br />The 50/F1.8MkII is 41.0mm long (and the original 50/F1.8 also is 41.0mm long)<br /><br />FWIW the 18 to 55, is 66.2mm long.<br>

Also FWIW I would choose the 35/F2 for what you want to do, reasons as per all the above comments.<br /><br />WW</p>

<p>Canon 35 f2 or 24 f2.8 depend on your preferred angle of coverage.</p>

<p>The 28mm f2.8 cannot be over looked. Venerable in age and design and focus mech, but still pretty fast, nice and sharp, decently built (unlike the nifty fifty) cheap and equivalent to approx 45mm on your 40D.<br>

A cracker. Very compact too. The 35 f2 is also a good shout, a bit tele for my tastes (the 28 is great for stitching)</p>

<p>Another vote for the 35 f/2.</p>

<p>I you don't mind using an adapter or focusing and stopping down manually, the OM Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 is 31mm long and costs about $50. The OM Zuiko 21mm f/3.5 is the same size but generally costs around $300.<br /> <br /> The 21mm makes a nice, compact wide-normal on a 1.6x body.<br /> <br /> See:<br /> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/28mm1.htm for more on the 28mm<br /> <br /> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/21mm.htm for more on the 21mm</p>

<p>I had a 30D for a while and tried attaching Nikon lenses via an adapter. I found that while the image quality was superb, the metering was useless with those lenses. One would assume that other adapted lenses would suffer similar issues</p>

<p dir="ltr">May I ask why you are looking for small lenses but got the 40D instead of a smaller XXXD camera?</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p>Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron ($379 + adapter). A true "pancake" lens that is optically wonderful -- especially for its price and size. Nothing is shorter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe we are picking nits, or maybe Puppy Face was not talking length, specifically? <br />But if a mm or two is important . . . :<br />My data sheets say:<br />The 28/F2.8 is 42.5mm long<br />The 35/F2 is 42.5mm long<br />The 50/F1.8MkII is 41.0mm long (and the original 50/F1.8 also is 41.0mm long)<br /><br />FWIW the 18 to 55, is 66.2mm long.<br />Also FWIW I would choose the 35/F2 for what you want to do, reasons as per all the above comments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I'll be dipped in sh!t 'n rolled in oats! It looked so much dad burn bigger on the frickin' camera. All those years of using a ET-65 on my 50 1.8 made it look massive compared to the EF 35 2.0/EW-65. Well length isn't everything...</p>

<p>Well,<br>

It's 4:30 on Friday here and I was just about to pull up stumps and call it a day . . . now my secretary thinks I have cracked up. . . on the floor p!ss!ng myself laughing.<br>

 <br>

Your response did not disappoint. :)  As we say down here:  ‘aveagoodweekend.<br>

 <br>

WW<br>

 <br>

 </p>

<p>Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6mm IS can be had used for $79.</p>