# Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2013)

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 13, 2013)

Long Live the Shorty McForty!

b&


----------



## FrutigerSans (Feb 13, 2013)

The question kept distracting me through the whole review:

Did you REALLY pour syrup on the pancake??? I imagine it would have been much too sweet for the pancake’s own good.


----------



## Waleed (Feb 13, 2013)

It's a lightweight sharp lens that works.. If you're into street photography, it's a nice lens for it (full-frame: 40mm, crop sensor: 64mm).

I did notice that my lens tends to forget to focus (when on AF), and the remedy is usually to remount it again; I think something is wrong with the connectors. I checked with another friend that has it, and he's encountering it too.. Anybody else experiencing that?


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 13, 2013)

Love the shorty


----------



## distant.star (Feb 13, 2013)

.
From a magazine editor's standpoint, this is pretty blah with uninspiring images. Very little useful information.

Roger, at LensRentals said all that needs to be said in four sentences:

"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."


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 13, 2013)

I bought this lens last year, but am yet to do any serious photography with it ... I took some boring photos of household items (like the image below) just to check the lens. Then I updated its firmware in Sep 2012 ... that's about what I did with this lens ... for whatever reasons, I don't use this lens at all, but it stays in my camera bag all the time "just in case" if I ever need it :-[
PS: This boring image was made with 5D MK III, EF 40 f/2.8, 1/80 sec, f2.8, ISO 3200, AWB, Standard Pic Style, One shot-AF, Spot Metering ... straight out of the camera.


----------



## ageha (Feb 13, 2013)

That's called a review these days? Amazing. Why not make a head line out of the other 100 reviews of that lens?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 13, 2013)

To those who don't know what to do with the Shorty McForty...

...take the grip off your 5D (or, better, the 6D!) and put on a wrist strap, put it in green square mode, turn on live view, and now, as far as non-photographers are concerned, all you've got is a slightly oversized P&S camera. Hand it around the table at the party and nobody will think twice. As a wedding photographer, get in the conga line with the rest of the guests taking snapshots. Use it on the street.

You've got something that, even at second glance, to most people, just looks like a high-end P&S camera. And not a one of them will realize that it's really the reigning IQ / low light monster it actually is.

And, yes -- the optics in the lens are right up there with any L zoom, including the latest ones.

And, if nothing else? It makes a perfectly serviceable body cap....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 13, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> And, if nothing else? It makes a perfectly serviceable body cap....


Keeping Canon's recent pricing strategy in mind, it might not be long when the body caps might become more expensive than this lens ;D ... maybe we should buy a few of these shorty forties, just in case. ;D


----------



## DanielW (Feb 13, 2013)

All I can think of is that other glass... Old Speckled Hen, hopefully...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2013)

I really like the 40/2.8. IQ is very good, and the size makes it _very_ convenient. My normal use for the lens is when I'm using a big white zoom, either the 70-200/2.8L IS II or the 100-400L. I carry that setup with a Blackrapid strap connected to the tripod collar, and the small size of the 40/2.8 means it fits in my pocket. When I need a wider FoV, I unmount the zoom and leave it attached to the Blackrapid strap, holding the camera with the 40/2.8 in my hand. If I wanted to do something similar with a 35L, 24-105L, etc., I'd have to put it in a lens case on a belt strap.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 13, 2013)

Waleed said:


> I did notice that my lens tends to forget to focus (when on AF), and the remedy is usually to remount it again; I think something is wrong with the connectors. I checked with another friend that has it, and he's encountering it too.. Anybody else experiencing that?


I think you have not heard of the firmware update that fixed this issue ... go to the below Canon webpage, select your operating system and you will find the firmware update ... follow the instructions
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_40mm_f_2_8_stm?selectedName=DriversAndSoftware


----------



## Lord_Zeppelin (Feb 13, 2013)

Not sure I understand the people complaining about this review. Since when have the reviews here been anything more than personal, real-world usage? That's what's good about them. If you want the technical, $1000 worth of software and optic-testing equipment reviews, you know where to go to get that.

I thought it was a good review, and provided some real-world perspective. If I had to complain, and this isn't a complaint so much as a question, why didn't you use it for some short videos. I mean, isn't this lens primarily aimed at DSLR video use over still photo? 

I would totally buy this lens over the nifty-50 based on the tighter build quality alone, not to mention the focusing system.


----------



## dolina (Feb 13, 2013)

Guys don't be too hard on the reviewer. Like any review it is but one man' opinion and personal criteria. I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.

I had Cps upgrade my firmware the day I bout it.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 13, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> To those who don't know what to do with the Shorty McForty...
> 
> ...take the grip off your 5D (or, better, the 6D!) and put on a wrist strap, put it in green square mode, turn on live view, and now, as far as non-photographers are concerned, all you've got is a slightly oversized P&S camera. *Hand it around the table at the party and nobody will think twice. *As a wedding photographer, get in the conga line with the rest of the guests taking snapshots. Use it on the street.
> 
> ...



+1 but a slight disagree on the highlighted text. The only place the cameras go once they are out of my hands is the camera bag or the dry cabinet! Can't trust passing $3000 worth equipment to guests around a table having the town's best bitter


----------



## caMARYnon (Feb 13, 2013)

Waleed said:


> It's a lightweight sharp lens that works.. If you're into street photography, it's a nice lens for it (full-frame: 40mm, crop sensor: 64mm).
> 
> I did notice that my lens tends to forget to focus (when on AF), and the remedy is usually to remount it again; I think something is wrong with the connectors. I checked with another friend that has it, and he's encountering it too.. Anybody else experiencing that?


From usa.canon:
_Firmware Version 1.2.0 addresses the following phenomenon. 
1. If pressure is applied to the lens barrel while the lens is mounted to the camera (pressure can be applied even while attaching the lens cap or while carrying the camera with the lens attached in a bag), the autofocusing function of the lens may stop working.
Firmware Version 1.2.0 is for lenses with Firmware Version 1.1.0. If the lens' firmware is already Version 1.2.0, it is not necessary to update the firmware. 
The lenses with the following serial numbers are equipped with Firmware Version 1.1.0:
The third digit in the serial number is either 0, 1, or 2 (xx0xxxxxxx, xx1xxxxxxx, or xx2xxxxxxx).
Lenses with serial numbers other than those listed above are equipped with Firmware Version 1.2.0._


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> From a magazine editor's standpoint, this is pretty blah with uninspiring images. Very little useful information.
> 
> Roger, at LensRentals said all that needs to be said in four sentences:
> ...



I don't disagree with you, I had this lens for MONTHS and never got much out of it. Or maybe I never put much into it. Either way, mileage may vary, and it's a good thing you're not my editor


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

FrutigerSans said:


> The question kept distracting me through the whole review:
> 
> Did you REALLY pour syrup on the pancake??? I imagine it would have been much too sweet for the pancake’s own good.



Ha ha, NO. I did consider it, but I figured a way around that. I have a larger version of that shot on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvlphoto/8470288929/#


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

ageha said:


> That's called a review these days? Amazing. Why not make a head line out of the other 100 reviews of that lens?



I could have, but I'd assume you've already read those.

Review, maybe be a misnomer at times, it's my experience, my recommendations, for or against, or neutral. I felt blah about the lens and thus, it is a blah review. When I'm excited about something, that shows too (I hope).


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

Lord_Zeppelin said:


> Not sure I understand the people complaining about this review. Since when have the reviews here been anything more than personal, real-world usage? That's what's good about them. If you want the technical, $1000 worth of software and optic-testing equipment reviews, you know where to go to get that.
> 
> I thought it was a good review, and provided some real-world perspective. If I had to complain, and this isn't a complaint so much as a question, why didn't you use it for some short videos. I mean, isn't this lens primarily aimed at DSLR video use over still photo?
> 
> I would totally buy this lens over the nifty-50 based on the tighter build quality alone, not to mention the focusing system.



Thank you! I was about to punch myself in the face.

Why no video? I don't actually shoot video with it - though I did have a discussion about it with some friends recently. If you're fixed focus everything about this makes sense, though anyone serious about video may need some level of manual focus ability and the very tiny MF ring at the front doesn't make this easy, or accurate. There's also no distance indicator for MF... so really it's great for video if you use the built-in AF (few people I know do) or if your focus is fixed.

Still, sharp lens, light weight, there's advantages to that.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

dolina said:


> Guys don't be too hard on the reviewer. Like any review it is but one man' opinion and personal criteria. I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.
> 
> I had Cps upgrade my firmware the day I bout it.



I think you make a good point. Not everyone needs or wants optical quality, and some people absolutely require it. I was very impressed with the quality of the images I took with the lens - but I only took photos with this lens when I was in more social environments, leaving it behind on assignment with a few exceptions when I forced myself to use it specifically for the review. 50 1.8 = bokeh and shallow dof 40 2.8 = image quality, both are small, affordable and pocketable. Heck, maybe people should buy both!


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 13, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> From a magazine editor's standpoint, this is pretty blah with uninspiring images. Very little useful information.
> 
> Roger, at LensRentals said all that needs to be said in four sentences:
> ...



+1

I don't think the reviewer's conclusion has done this lens justice. The innuendo is that this lens is 'quite good for the money', and this is misleading - it's very good in it's own right irrespective of cost. The centre is as good as the 50 1.4 at f2.8, from f4 to f11 it has superb across-the-frame sharpness, and it is a modern 'for digital' lens which controls the digital clipping to highlight' better than made for film lenses IMO


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 13, 2013)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7114.180

Here are some photos I took with the pancake on my 5D3 recently. 

I tried it on my T2i for street photography (my first attempt at street work) and was not too happy with that combo. I missed my stabilized kit lens. However on the 5D3, it really shines. I was using the camera on auto ISO and taking advantage of the wide range of usable ISO.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I don't think the reviewer's conclusion has done this lens justice. The innuendo is that this lens is 'quite good for the money', and this is misleading - it's very good in it's own right irrespective of cost. The centre is as good as the 50 1.4 at f2.8, from f4 to f11 it has superb across-the-frame sharpness, and it is a modern 'for digital' lens which controls the digital clipping to highlight' better than made for film lenses IMO



Funny, I did like using it for Pano's - but we didn't include them in the review since they're not reflective of the lens from a stand-alone POV. And you're right, hopefully people read through the forum here to see that it is a good lens, I did try to say that, though still being generally unimpressed I couldn't come out saying how great something is despite not really being able to put it to good use myself. Obviously sharpness tests and stuff are available in spades across the internet, which will never be my focus.

Thanks!

JVL


----------



## caMARYnon (Feb 13, 2013)

I love the 40. My normal use for this lens is everyday except the weekend, I have it when I drive to or from the office. Like Trumpetpower said: _looks like a high-end P&S camera_ . 
Another excellent use is when I'm using 70-200 but I want to have something good for a relative wide image.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

caMARYnon said:


> I love the 40. My normal use for this lens is everyday except the weekend, I have it when I drive to or from the office. Like Trumpetpower said: _looks like a high-end P&S camera_ .
> Another excellent use is when I'm using 70-200 but I want to have something good for a relative wide image.



Smart kit.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

One thing I found easy enough to do with the lens was create pano's if I wanted to exaggerate the dof while expanding my fov. Because the nodal point of this lens is essentially on-axis to the camera, it's pretty easy to not screw up (that and software has gotten pretty good at forgiving my errors).


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 13, 2013)

You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.



Ha ha, I bought it *specifically* for the shoot. I wouldn't feed my kids with it, but 100% pure maple syrup is a bit expensive to go pouring over a lens for one shot


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.
> ...



Not only that, but the cheap shit has all sorts of thickeners that make it more photogenic. Perhaps not surprisingly, they also do a good job at thickening those who eat it....

I'd do two things for that shot, though...first, I'd transfer the syrup to a small pitcher so it wasn't so obvious that it's the cheap shit...and I'd also consider using motor oil / transmission oil / Slick 50 / etc. instead of syrup.

...it would depend, of course, on whether or not the lens was intended to remain functional after the shot. I'd probably ask Canon for a warranty reject destined for the scrap heap for a donor lens, but I know there're photo shoots where nobody would bat an eye at a few hundred spent on props.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...



Good points, I don't do a lot of product photos so it's learn as I go. I think cheap plastic tubs might even be more recognizable for a certain demographic, just not Canadians or people who buy expensive camera gear.

And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.


----------



## dolina (Feb 13, 2013)

I bought the 40/2.8 for street and social gatherings. Essentially this is my go to lens if I want the lightest possible SLR setup that still has L-like image quality.

Traditional street has you stopping down to f/8 and at a focal length of 35-50mm on full frame. What this baby lack is a depth of field scale so you can easily do zone focusing. I do wish it was a 2.0 like that Voightlander equivalent.

The pancake is the 2nd cheapest lens amongst all Canon lenses. The 50/1.8 is the cheapest lens at $100.



JVLphoto said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Guys don't be too hard on the reviewer. Like any review it is but one man' opinion and personal criteria. I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.



Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!


----------



## rhblmhb (Feb 13, 2013)

Isn't one of the biggest benefits of this lens that it utilizes the STM focusing system which allows continual auto-focusing while taking video? Everything in the review was what I expected from the lens but to leave that out seems like an oversight.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.
> ...



Thanks, that's an interesting site, though I'm not quite sure how to read the "results"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...



http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...



Neither am I, though I'll heartily agree that the post-processing was very well done. I haven't critically examined it, but it's at least good enough that it doesn't make one think that critical examination is necessary -- which translates to, "Mission Accomplished!"

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 13, 2013)

I love carrying the shorty 40 either in a walkabout kit as a pocket or back throw in with a longer lens (telephoto zoom or 135L). I recently traveled with the 24-105L, 135L, 1.4x and shorty forty. All of this went comfortably into a smallish sling bag and was a great combination. I did everything from landscapes to 3 portrait shoots on the trip. The shorty forty is a nice complement to the 135L for environmental portraits.

40mm is a nice "woods" length lens. Wide enough, and the sharpness is as good as anything I've got for things like that. It is also very sharp at minimum focus distance, which allows for some very crisp leaf or flower shots like this:




Hanging Around by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I do disagree with the reviewer as to this lens vs the 50mm f/1.8. The 40mm, while a slower aperture, is perfectly usable wide open, has much better color rendition, smoother transition to ooF, better build quality, and, of course, focuses much faster and quieter. IMO on a full frame body the 40mm is a preferable focal length (I prefer the 35mm range to the 50mm).


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Tl;dr


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I love carrying the shorty 40 either in a walkabout kit as a pocket or back throw in with a longer lens (telephoto zoom or 135L). I recently traveled with the 24-105L, 135L, 1.4x and shorty forty. All of this went comfortably into a smallish sling bag and was a great combination. I did everything from landscapes to 3 portrait shoots on the trip. The shorty forty is a nice complement to the 135L for environmental portraits.
> 
> 40mm is a nice "woods" length lens. Wide enough, and the sharpness is as good as anything I've got for things like that. It is also very sharp at minimum focus distance, which allows for some very crisp leaf or flower shots like this:
> 
> ...



Perfect counter points, a great addendum to my own experience. We just need a video person in this forum and it's all covered!


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 13, 2013)

I love my shorty. sure I don't use it everyday but it helps out the shoulders/neck when walking around all day at an amusement park. I use it for it's intended purpose. non-mission-critical, casual photography when I don't want to lug around the big guns. It's the ninja lens. The rest of my guys are big Samurai and Sumo wrestlers!


----------



## dlheidemann (Feb 13, 2013)

I picked one of these up not too long ago and I'm totally loving it. With my zoom lenses I find I'm always hovering around the 40mm range anyway, so it seemed pretty obvious. The price is fantastic and the image quality is pretty dang good if you ask me. 

I feel like prime lenses of all types force you to think about photography differently. It makes you interact with your subject in a different and what I think is an ultimately more organic way.


----------



## Alex (Feb 13, 2013)

Please tell me that wasn't actually a real 40mm having syrup poured over it and that it was photoshopped


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 13, 2013)

Alex said:


> Please tell me that wasn't actually a real 40mm having syrup poured over it and that it was photoshopped



Okay.


----------



## Harry Muff (Feb 14, 2013)

Love how you waited for Pancake Day to post this. ;D


----------



## Rowbear (Feb 14, 2013)

dolina said:


> I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.



Same here, the 'lil 40 is much better in every way.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 14, 2013)

Rowbear said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.
> ...



_Almost_ every way.

The Plastic Fantastic is over a stop faster and a bit longer and thus can get a shallower depth of field.

The extra stop is nice for low light, too, but the insane high ISO abilities of modern cameras make that advantage of wide apertures much less important.

If I had to choose between the Plastic Fantastic and the Shorty McForty, I'd pick the Shorty McForty in a heartbeat, though. The Plastic Fantastic wouldn't be my go-to lens for wide aperture work, so that one area where it narrowly beats the Shorty McForty is irrelevant to me.

b&


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 14, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Long Live the Shorty McForty!
> 
> b&



It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".

There is no linkage to this lens in particular to the celtic naming you are trying to promote other than someone trying hard to make it stick....may be if it were wearing a kilt?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 14, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Long Live the Shorty McForty!
> ...



Well, I don't know about anybody else's Shorty McForty, but mine not only wears a very stylish kilt, but it's got great big hairy brass ones hidden underneath, swinging freely in the breeze. It positively thrives on the Water of Life. And the way it plays the pipes would raise the dead and kill the living. Oh -- it also likes haggis for breakfast and porridge for supper.

...that, and I've not only always heard it referred to with that honorific, I also like the way it rolls off the tongue.

b&


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 14, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Well, I don't know about anybody else's Shorty McForty, but mine not only wears a very stylish kilt, but it's got great big hairy brass ones hidden underneath, swinging freely in the breeze. It positively thrives on the Water of Life. And the way it plays the pipes would raise the dead and kill the living. Oh -- it also likes haggis for breakfast and porridge for supper.
> 
> ...that, and I've not only always heard it referred to with that honorific, I also like the way it rolls off the tongue.
> 
> b&


LMAO ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Very interesting site indeed ... did not know something like this existed for *free*. Thanks for sharing


----------



## dolina (Feb 14, 2013)

I have a Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE that is faster than the 50/1.8. If I need more speed there is the 1.2 or 1.0 50mm.

A point against the 50/1.8 is the design is from 1990 and it is rumored to be slated for a replacement with a Series 3.

The whole point of the 50/1.8 is not optical quality but price then followed by weight and speed. With the 40/2.8 my shooting style is always stopped down at 4.0 through 8.0.

I am the type of shooter who prefers optical quality of lens speed. I could've gotten any Sigma lens that is cheaper but IQ and ergonomics are far 2nd to the optics Canon has released in the past decade.



TrumpetPower! said:


> _Almost_ every way.
> 
> The Plastic Fantastic is over a stop faster and a bit longer and thus can get a shallower depth of field.
> 
> ...


----------



## aroo (Feb 14, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".


I seriously hope Nifty Von Fifty sticks.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 14, 2013)

An okay review. I'd take my 40 f/2.8 in a heart beat over my 50 f/1.8.

I have to say the pancake is one of my all time favorite lenses!


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 14, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.



I loved the 24-105L (I have owned two copies, just recently sold my last because the Tamron 24-70 VC nudged it out), but at similar apertures the shorty forty will top it in IQ. Hard to believe, but true. Sharpness across the frame is REALLY high in the shorty. Stopped down to f/8 or so the sharpness across the frame is as good as anything in my kit. I have read that refraction sets in after f/10 or so, so I wouldn't suggest using it as a primary landscape lens if you want really deep depth of field, but its resolution is impressively high for such a small optic.


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 14, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.



Yeah, I don't think you'll be disappointed by the 40mm at all with this setup. I may be a bit jaded having recently come off of using the incredible 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L II.


----------



## alan_k (Feb 14, 2013)

I have a shorty forty but haven't used it much yet. The list price is $200, but over the holidays it was $40 or $50 less with rebates. Throw some store discounts on top of that and it was too cheap to pass up.

I've got that mid-range focal length well represented already- it's a stop faster than my 17-40L, it's slower than my Sigma 30/1.4 and nifty 50. I'm tempted to get a cheap rebel body just for this lens- is that crazy?


----------



## wayno (Feb 14, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.
> ...



I know that feeling!


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 14, 2013)

aroo said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".
> ...



*chuckle* Yes, soon we would have every focal length assigned to some ethnic/cultural combine if we go by the "Shorty McForty in Kilt" wish. 

For me, the original "Shorty Forty" works just fine.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 14, 2013)

The closing sentence of the review is at best —awkward.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

wayno said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...


I guess there's no point in arguing with myself any longer then. I'll have to face the facts and go get one.


----------



## kennephoto (Feb 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I really like the 40/2.8. IQ is very good, and the size makes it _very_ convenient. My normal use for the lens is when I'm using a big white zoom, either the 70-200/2.8L IS II or the 100-400L. I carry that setup with a Blackrapid strap connected to the tripod collar, and the small size of the 40/2.8 means it fits in my pocket. When I need a wider FoV, I unmount the zoom and leave it attached to the Blackrapid strap, holding the camera with the 40/2.8 in my hand. If I wanted to do something similar with a 35L, 24-105L, etc., I'd have to put it in a lens case on a belt strap.



+1 I do the same thing. I have a small Domke bag and I have room for the 5d2 and a 300 F4 and its stays very light weight that way. Or like when I the pankake came with my girl and I out for a night it makes for some fun self portraits at high iso and no annoying flash. I love this pankake, it makes me smile every time I mount it to my 5d2 and wow can I get some very detailed photos at f2.8!


----------



## Gcon (Feb 15, 2013)

ageha said:


> That's called a review these days? Amazing. Why not make a head line out of the other 100 reviews of that lens?



Totally agree. That's one of the weakest "reviews" I've ever read.

I have this lens and I don't find the colours as punchy as L glass. I am reaching for the vibrancy a fair bit more. Also it has horrible bokeh. Really not nice.

Still it is wonderfully sharp and wonderfully light and wonderfully cheap. If you don't have much in the way of bokeh (it gets really schizophrenic) and you are OK to do some color work on this lens, then go for it.

The AF is not USM-fast - but definitely fast enough for portrait and candid work. More importantly the AF is accurate, which can't always be said about Canon's entire 50mm range.


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 15, 2013)

OK, already! I got one just because it is so small and light and really easy to bring along.

Now, I'll just need to figure out what I'll use it for.


----------



## photogjack (Feb 15, 2013)

I have the Shorty Forty and use it to fill the gap between my 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.2L. I like it a lot and it works perfectly for what I want. For $200? It's a no brainer. Almost every photographer (especially those of us on full frame bodies) can use this lens. If you use primes, it sits in a very nice spot between 24-28mm lenses and the 50s. (It might not be as attractive for peeps who have a 35). If you use zooms, it's a much smaller, lighter lens for carrying around. And then we get back to the $200 part of the equation. It is, hands down, the best $200 lens on the market. 




distant.star said:


> .
> From a magazine editor's standpoint, this is pretty blah with uninspiring images. Very little useful information.
> 
> Roger, at LensRentals said all that needs to be said in four sentences:
> ...


----------



## dolina (Feb 15, 2013)

Because of the 40/2.8 I have decided to not get the 35/1.4 II anymore.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 15, 2013)

I got mine today, used. Bought it off a guy who is a member of our local photography club. Barely a month old, mint condition and all for the equivalent of $ 150


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 15, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> The closing sentence of the review is at best —awkward.



Tell me about it: Imagine being the guy who wrote it :-\


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 15, 2013)

dolina said:


> Because of the 40/2.8 I have decided to not get the 35/1.4 II anymore.



At Building Panoramics we actually chose to use the 40 STM rather than the 35 f1.4L for our latest picture which is a panoramic of the beautiful interior of Beverley Minster in England.

We used the 40mm for a number of reasons. Firstly the focal length fitted what we were shooting, but also the shallow nodal point makes movement of the camera in a 5 across two up panoramic stitch easier to manage and we don't need to use the sliding panoramic head. ( JVLphoto pointed this out in his response ) . Also we always shoot at f8, and at this aperture the 40 is just as good as the 35 L. And lastly the 40 has virtually zero distortion.

Sophisticated stitching programs can tolerate a great deal of distortion, but using a lens that has virtually zero distortion to start with makes putting the picture together a lot easier. For anyone who wants to shoot panoramics but doesn't have sophisticated stitching programs - get this lens !

The "focus by wire' is growing on me. To start with I appreciated the smoothness of the ring but found the total lack of connection to anything a little off putting. However I'm getting used to it, and think in time I will prefer it to the really - well errr - crappy manual focus on the other cheaper Canon lenses - meaning 50 1.4. Canon please improve this on the new 50 IS


----------



## JVLphoto (Feb 15, 2013)

I thought some of you, though not interested in the content of the review, may be interested in my how-to on pouring syrup on the lens (or how I didn't actually pour syrup on the lens) http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/15/tutorial-creating-a-photo-of-syrup-being-poured-on-a-pancake-lens/


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 15, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> I thought some of you, though not interested in the content of the review, may be interested in my how-to on pouring syrup on the lens (or how I didn't actually pour syrup on the lens) http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/15/tutorial-creating-a-photo-of-syrup-being-poured-on-a-pancake-lens/



Thanks for that! Again, well done.

b&


----------



## PerfectSavage (Feb 17, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.



The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty". I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body. I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired. I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter. I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF? Really? If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF. The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.


----------



## PerfectSavage (Feb 17, 2013)

dolina said:


> Because of the 40/2.8 I have decided to not get the 35/1.4 II anymore.



You might want to rethink that. That's kinda like saying because of STM in the T4i, I don't need that 1Dx anymore.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 17, 2013)

PerfectSavage said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.
> ...



Interesting. Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine. Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you. Sharper and more consistent? Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.

My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).


----------



## J.R. (Feb 17, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> PerfectSavage said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



+1 ... I see more people choosing the shorty forty over the nifty fifty. The nifty fifty is sharp all right, but everything else in that lens is a big compromise.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Interesting. Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine. Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you. Sharper and more consistent? Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.
> 
> My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).


+1


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2013)

J.R. said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > PerfectSavage said:
> ...


+1 ... (over a period of 6 years) I had three 50 f/1.8 lenses (bought the first one, I got the second one as a free bundle with a DSLR and third one was a gift) but none of them could auto focus as fast as the 40 f/2.8 ... build quality of 40 is way better than the 50 f/1.8


----------



## JVLphoto (Mar 6, 2013)

PerfectSavage said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.
> ...



I think you see it from the same perspective that I approached the review from. I didn't look at it as a compliment to a lens arsenal of a pro or advanced amateur, but a reasonably priced entry level lens for someone contemplating their (likely) second lens after a kit purchase... everyone else will likely know if they want it or not I figure... or, like me, be confused by it


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 8, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> or, like me, be confused by it


Why "confused"?


----------



## JVLphoto (Mar 8, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > or, like me, be confused by it
> ...



Why it was made. Though this particular forum has made it clear that it's already a beloved lens, that many were waiting for.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 8, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...


To make photos of course ... but seriously I think its a neat little lens and comes in handy when one does not want to stick out like a sore thumb with the regular lenses in certain places.


JVLphoto said:


> Though this particular forum has made it clear that it's already a beloved lens, that many were waiting for.


I don't know about it being my "beloved lens" but it isn't just this forum, generally speaking most people seem to like its form factor and overall performance vs price ... although I don't use it a lot, I do carry it everyday in my bag as a back up ... for the price and performance, it is worth having it ... besides, its not gonna put a dent in anyone's bank balance.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 21, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> PerfectSavage said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



I agree with dustin, the nifty fifty need to be stopped down to 2.2 or 2.5 which is only marginally faster than the 40, the 40 is built ALOT better and oof is much much better the 5 blades hurt the 50 1.8 alot
the 40mm gives comparable image quality to the 70-200 f2.8L IMO and is a great little partner for this lens


----------



## Dittoman1 (Apr 22, 2013)

Lord_Zeppelin said:


> Not sure I understand the people complaining about this review. Since when have the reviews here been anything more than personal, real-world usage? That's what's good about them. If you want the technical, $1000 worth of software and optic-testing equipment reviews, you know where to go to get that.
> 
> I thought it was a good review, and provided some real-world perspective. If I had to complain, and this isn't a complaint so much as a question, why didn't you use it for some short videos. I mean, isn't this lens primarily aimed at DSLR video use over still photo?
> 
> I would totally buy this lens over the nifty-50 based on the tighter build quality alone, not to mention the focusing system.



Does this update have to be send to canon or do it myself by putting it in CF card after unzip?? Sorry I m kinda new


----------



## dgatwood (May 28, 2013)

Dittoman1 said:


> Does this update have to be send to canon or do it myself by putting it in CF card after unzip?? Sorry I m kinda new



If you have one of the newer cameras that support upgrading lens firmware, then you can do it yourself. Otherwise, you either have to find someone with a newer camera or ship it to Canon and they'll do it for you. Or return it to the store as defective and exchange it for one with a March or later serial number. 




PerfectSavage said:


> The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty". I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body. I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired. I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter. I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.



If you happen to be on a crop body, that 10mm makes a huge difference. Also, the 40mm is currently selling for for about $150, so it really isn't twice as expensive unless you're comparing retail against discounted prices.


----------



## stein (Sep 15, 2013)

why make the review when you obviously dont like the making of the lens?? this is agreat tool for 5D and 7D alike, IQ and the size makes a good travel lens!
Stein, Norway


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 16, 2013)

Agree with Dustin and others on the pancake...Overall I say it's a far better lens than the "nifty fifty". Although I'm not sure how much better the transition from focus to out-of-focus the 40mm is than the 50mm f/1.8. The 50 has a shorter transition area which helps it, at least when set to faster aperture than f/2.8...besides being a slightly narrower field of view...which also makes this transition area faster/shallower. But the 50's bokeh fringing (or longitudinal CA) is far more pronounced at these faster apertures...and always looked ugly to me.

The 50 has more color saturation, but it is a bit less neutral to my eyes. 

The main reasons I prefer the pancake to the 50 1.8, are the higher sharpness (to the FF corners), and the slightly wider field of view...which is far more useful for landscape and close range portraiture than the 50's is. Also, after I sold the "nifty fifty", I bought the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton SLii f/1.4. I vastly prefer its color, contrast, and sharpness...to both the pancake and the "nifty fifty". Its actual focal length at infinity focus is more like 53 or 54mm, rather than 58. However, it's a manual, Nikon-mount lens, so there are drawbacks...but I found them worthwhile. The bokeh smoothness isn't much better than the Canon 50mm f/1.8's, but _it is better_, and certainly even more extreme at f/1.4. It's not perfect, but it's the choice I made...and I also prefer it to the current (old) Canon 50mm f/1.4. The f/1.2L would be the better choice for sole use as a portrait lens, obviously...but then it costs 3x the price of the Voigt, and 8x the price of the pancake...and portrait shooting isn't always high on my list...certainly not professionally at this time.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 14, 2013)

stein said:


> why make the review when you obviously dont like the making of the lens?? this is agreat tool for 5D and 7D alike, IQ and the size makes a good travel lens!
> Stein, Norway



I happen to agree with you. I had a 70D for a few weeks and the 40mm rarely left it.


----------

