# already have the 50mm f/1.4 - does the 40mm f/2.8 make any sense?



## rj79in (Jan 12, 2013)

I wanted to check out the 40mm (primarily because of its "chic" looks) but already have the 50mm f/1.4. Just wondering whether the 40mm does anything that the 50mm does not with respect to IQ?


----------



## old_york (Jan 12, 2013)

My 40mm arrived about 30 mins ago. 

If i get time later to today (busy day so no promises) I'll take them both out and try and get some comparison shots.
first impressions:
1- It's TINY! Looks hilarious on 5D3. 
2- Bokeh is VERY good.
3- Looks like it's real nice IQ for the price.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 12, 2013)

Being modern lens and coating and made for digital I find it handles the graduation to highlights and lowlights better than 50 1.4. 

Being a film era lens the 50 has quite abrupt contrast, so it's a benefit in low contrast lighting but the 40 has the advantage in high contrast situations. 

Given the price it was an obvious purchase for me !


----------



## filo64 (Jan 12, 2013)

I got the 40mm STM because I only really liked the 50mm 1.4 from f/2.8 upwards and didn't use it anymore once I got the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. The small size of the 40mm is a big plus when you are disappointed by your next best camera and want to carry your SLR in your backpack more often. I also like the close focusing ability of the 40mm.


----------



## sanfranchristo (Jan 12, 2013)

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Yes. It's a joy to use, the image quality is very good, and it's relatively inexpensive so if you're even curious, just get it. It quite easily fits in a pocket so if there were times when you didn't have your 50mm available (say you were out and about with just a telephoto or needed to travel particularly light), it allows you to have a reasonably fast and wide option handy at all times. It's almost worth it just for the comically small size, especially on a full-frame body. This also makes it a great option for street photography - it's as inconspicuous as you can get with a full-frame and is arguably the perfect focal length (appeasing those in either the 35mm or 50mm "normal" camps).


----------



## candyman (Jan 12, 2013)

sanfranchristo said:


> Short answer: No.
> 
> Long answer: Yes. It's a joy to use, the image quality is very good, and it's relatively inexpensive so if you're even curious, just get it. It quite easily fits in a pocket so if there were times when you didn't have your 50mm available (*say you were out and about with just a telephoto or needed to travel particularly light*), it allows you to have a reasonably fast and wide option handy at all times. It's almost worth it just for the comically small size, especially on a full-frame body. This also makes it a great option for street photography - it's as inconspicuous as you can get with a full-frame and is arguably the perfect focal length (appeasing those in either the 35mm or 50mm "normal" camps).




Exactly why I bought it.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jan 12, 2013)

old_york said:


> first impressions:
> 1- It's TINY! Looks hilarious on 5D3.
> 2- Bokeh is VERY good.
> 3- Looks like it's real nice IQ for the price.


^^^
This. And its dirt cheap. I love my 50 1.4, but the IQ from the 40 is brilliant. Better than my Canon 35mm f2, IMHO. I was using both today for a static subject, with slightly different results.


----------



## Scarpz13 (Jan 12, 2013)

I have both as well. 
While i was generally happy with my 50mm 1.4 I had a very low keeper rate below f2. It seems kind of mushy so really I was mostly using it at f2.8 anyway unless it was very dark.
The pancake is super sharp wide open and I find I'm taking it with me instead of the 50mm 9 times out of 10. And at the price you cant go wrong. After all It's cheaper than the 77mm circular polarizer I just bought for my 24-105!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jan 12, 2013)

The (ungripped) 5DIII with the Shorty McForty and a wrist strap is the ultimate P&S. At first glance by a non-photographer, it just looks like a high-end P&S. The next time you're at a party, etc., and would otherwise reach for your iPhone, put it in green square mode and turn on live view. Maybe even pass it around the table. Nobody will realize that it's the reigning IQ / low light monster that it is until they see the prints.

If I were a wedding photographer, I'd definitely do some reception / dance shots like that, as an inconspicuous "guest" in the thick of things and just another random schmuck there with a camera.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jan 12, 2013)

My answer is also a NO.
I had both for a while.
I bought the 40 because i thought it would make a good body cap that shoots…
I had it for about 6mths and sold it becuase during that 6mths, i never used it once.
then again, i also almost never use my 50 f1.4…because i too bought the Sigma 85 f1.4 and neither the 50 or 40 can match it's IQ so i just don't use them.

However, between the 50 and the 40, if i were to only choose 1, i'd choose the 50…becauase you can shoot at 1.4 if you need to…granted the 50 isn't as sharp as the 40…but i i'd sacrifice the IQ for the 1.4 capabilities...


----------



## rj79in (Jan 13, 2013)

Thanks to everyone! 

Given the +ve reaction to the 40mm, I'm tempted. Will try it out.


----------



## EvilTed (Jan 13, 2013)

It's $150 dude...

Get it and have fun with it.

ET


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 13, 2013)

The only lens cap that you can take pictures with  very friendly to carry around with DSLR


----------



## rj79in (Jan 13, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> *The only lens cap that you can take pictures with*  very friendly to carry around with DSLR



Yeah ... I hope the images with the lens cap doesn't have a light leak issue ;D


----------



## christianronnel (Jan 13, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> The only lens cap that you can take pictures with  very friendly to carry around with DSLR


lol Dylan. I thought the same thing when I purchased it. If I hated it I can still use it as a lens cap when traveling. My camera will always have a lens on it. Now, I only really use it for this purpose. There's a certain look from the 50mm that I can't get with this 40mm and the STM focus is rather slow. IQ wise, the 50 1.4 seems sharper at f2.8 (on full frame). But that could just be my copies, no AFMA on either of them. Additionally, not being able to pre-focus the 40mm made it unusable for street photography or general walk-around lens.

So for anyone wondering, I say don't bother.


----------



## Botts (Jan 13, 2013)

I have both for my 6D. However, if I were shooting crop, I'd pick up a Sigma 30, and sell the 50/1.4 to fund a 40STM.

I use the 50mm f/1.4 when I need the low light for events where I can't use a flash, or I want extreme depth of field.

However, at almost every other point, I've got the 40STM on my camera. I like the slightly wider focal length. It's also incredibly sharp. If I'm shooting an event with a strobe, I'll go with the 40STM over the 50mm every time, set it to f/4 and you've got IMO the right amount of DOF, and super sharp images.

I also like that if I want to travel light and without my camera bag, I can throw the 40STM in a pocket, and keep the 70-200 f/4L IS on the 6D. It covers most of the range I need, and I don't need to worry about bag checks or the weight.

Also, another nice bonus is that the 40STM is cheap enough I don't even bother with a lens cap for it, so it's always ready.

Finally, despite thinking that us Canon owners are the only ones with a "body cap" lens, Olympus M43 users have an even smaller option! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893289-REG/Olympus_v325010bw000_15mm_F8_0_Lens_On.html Only downside is it's a fixed f/8 with the focus set permanently hyperfocal.


----------

