# 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens



## Hussein (Mar 20, 2013)

I was a little unsure about the 40mm f/2.8, but i wanted something small for travel and general use without sacrificing qualify. Reading all the MTF charts and positive reviews on this lens, i went ahead and bought it. My first impression after taking the first shot was WOW. I'm really impressed. It exceeded my expectations. This lens is extremely sharp, easy to handle, great Bokeh even though it's only 40mm. Focus may not be the fastest but it's pretty fast and will work great for most situations. Here are few portrait shots taken with this lens. It was a cloudy day, no other lights used. Shots were between f/2.8 and f/9 on a 5D Mark III. The only thing done is post was crop, vignetted few images for added effect, and adjusted white balance. 

http://eprogramers.com/40mm/1.jpg
http://eprogramers.com/40mm/2.jpg
http://eprogramers.com/40mm/3.jpg
http://eprogramers.com/40mm/4.jpg
http://eprogramers.com/40mm/5.jpg
http://eprogramers.com/40mm/6.jpg
http://eprogramers.com/40mm/7.jpg


----------



## rmblack (Mar 20, 2013)

What a sweet little girl 

That last shot really sells it to me with the 100% crop - holy cow! My boss bought one of these for shooting on a telescoping pole above crowds and that is all I've really used it for. I'm going to have to grab it for some portraits!  Is that really f9 in all the shots? whoops didn't read everything


----------



## bholliman (Mar 20, 2013)

Beautiful shots Hussein, and really cute little girl! I've been on the fence about buying this lens, but I think you have convinced me. The compact size would make it a great walk around lens. I normally use my 24-105mm for that, but it often gets pretty heavy.


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 20, 2013)

Great little lens! I'm so glad that Canon made it.


----------



## barracuda (Mar 20, 2013)

Wonderful photos! You've inspired me to use mine more often.

Just one minor suggestion... maybe better to crop out the car in #4?


----------



## kennephoto (Mar 20, 2013)

I love my canon pancake!


----------



## obach (Mar 20, 2013)

Hussein said:


> I was a little unsure about the 40mm f/2.8, but i wanted something small for travel and general use without sacrificing qualify. Reading all the MTF charts and positive reviews on this lens, i went ahead and bought it. My first impression after taking the first shot was WOW. I'm really impressed. It exceeded my expectations. This lens is extremely sharp, easy to handle, great Bokeh even though it's only 40mm. Focus may not be the fastest but it's pretty fast and will work great for most situations. Here are few portrait shots taken with this lens. It was a cloudy day, no other lights used. Shots were between f/2.8 and f/9 on a 5D Mark III. The only thing done is post was crop, vignetted few images for added effect, and adjusted white balance.
> 
> http://eprogramers.com/40mm/1.jpg
> http://eprogramers.com/40mm/2.jpg
> ...


Nice pic's!
I totally agree with you. The lens is a bargain. The Sigma 35 f1.4 lens was discussed yesterday here at CR.
Look at this comparison and watch the difference... :-D
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=810&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

brg
Øystein Bach


----------



## sanj (Mar 20, 2013)

Cute baby!


----------



## Studio1930 (Mar 20, 2013)

Nice. Okay, I just ordered one. I have been putting it off but I guess it won't take up much camera bag space.  It will allow me to take a 1DX and 200 f/2 all in one small bag and put the 40mm in the pouch area.


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 20, 2013)

There's a lot to like about the lens, but I just didn't like the under-saturated / faded blue it produces. It is (on paper) a perfect little rascal, but for me a lens needs to be more than perfect ... it must have a character of its own ... something that makes it _that_ particular lens and not just _a_ lens. The *EF 40mm f/2.8 STM* is, in my opinion, just a very good 40mm lens that does the work that needs be done ... without passion.


----------



## baervan (Mar 20, 2013)

nice and crisp! I wonder how the sharpness compares with lenses like the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Mar 20, 2013)

I like the idea of calling it a walk-around lens. It really transforms my 5D3 into a casual tourist camera that just happens to create great images.

I've used it on my T2i for that purpose, but the images seemed less sharp. I suspect it is because I could not hold the little camera as steady as the larger one. It's hard to beat the stabilized kit lens on the Rebel.


----------



## iKenndac (Mar 20, 2013)

I bought this lens a week ago and so far I adore it. Image quality is absolutely superb for such a cheap and tiny package.

I also love how small it is. With this lens and the silent shooting mode on my 6D, I actually feel somewhat discreet when out and about - something I haven't felt for a long long time.


----------



## Roger Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

Its better on FF than on a crop body, 64mm is too narrow for a normal and not long enough to be interesting. The 
OP's photos are the sweet spot for this lens with the subject 2 -5 feet away. Focus is kind of slow and it hunts a lot on a 550d. On a 5d it feels unbalanced to me. I'm used to having something more substantial attached. Very cute subject.


----------



## Hussein (Mar 20, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> There's a lot to like about the lens, but I just didn't like the under-saturated / faded blue it produces. It is (on paper) a perfect little rascal, but for me a lens needs to be more than perfect ...


Definition of saturation is different for everyone. If you feel the need for more, you can easily bump vibrance or saturation in post. You can't go wrong with this lens. 



baervan said:


> nice and crisp! I wonder how the sharpness compares with lenses like the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4


50 1.8 is an old technology from the 90's. It's cheaply made. Resolution doesn't get good until f/4 and bokeh is poor. As for the 50 1.4 resolution doesn't get good until f4, even at f2.8 the 40mm beats it. I don't care how much light the 1.4 gets in, resolution is unacceptable at this aperture. When for less then half the price you see the 40mm has solid charts across the frame, it's a no brainier. People can argue about this all they want, at the end of the day results are what matters. 



Roger Jones said:


> Focus is kind of slow and it hunts a lot on a 550d. On a 5d it feels unbalanced to me. I'm used to having something more substantial attached. Very cute subject.


40mm Focus is pretty fast on the 5D Mark III, maybe not as fast as USM but it's fast to a point where i was able to use it in Servo mode and still lock focus on fast moving subject. Focus speed is nothing to worry about since it's a walk around lens. Balance is no issue at all, with the 40mm on, the camera feels light and fun to use. You will always have those 2% of people who would find something to complain about, but in reality this is an exceptional lens. 



xamkrah said:


>


HAHA, that was funny. Don't think she's all quite and listening to me, she would run everytime i tried to take a pic. I was lucky i got those shots. She was only still when she was playing with the sand.


----------



## Hussein (Mar 25, 2013)

More pics from this little pancake beauty


----------



## Harry Muff (Mar 25, 2013)

Hussein said:


> More pics from this little pancake beauty






Love the first shot here.


----------



## Erikerodri (Mar 26, 2013)

How are you guys liking this lens compared to the 50mm 1.8 canon? I'd like to get the pancake but if it isn't as sharp or produce comparable images, I feel like it isn't worth it but that is me.


----------



## ecka (Mar 26, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> How are you guys liking this lens compared to the 50mm 1.8 canon? I'd like to get the pancake but if it isn't as sharp or produce comparable images, I feel like it isn't worth it but that is me.


I like the pancake better (build, bokeh, AF), but 50/1.8'II seems to be a little bit sharper at f/2.8 when comparing at 100%.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Mar 27, 2013)

I haven't done any sharpness tests with the 40 yet. It's sharp enough for my needs and I love how light it feels on my 5D3 or even my T2i.

Here's a shot I did a couple of weeks ago on the 5D3. It was at F/6.3 since I wanted to keep the statue of Portlandia almost in focus. ISO 3200. Shutter speed was 1/160 hand held so it isn't really tack sharp, but it doesn't need to be:


----------



## E-Bahn (Mar 27, 2013)

If you've got the ~200$ to spare, I'd go for it (In fact, I did). 

I've been using both the 50 1.8 and the 40 on my 6d and I've been using the 40 more and more, though I haven't done any direct comparisons.

I bought the 40 a couple weeks ago because I wanted to take photos of my new baby, which means taking lots of indoor shots of the friends and family crowding around him. I find the extra 10mm makes enough of a difference in this regard, without causing too much (if any) distortion of features.

Furthermore, I do find the construction to be better to the point of making it more enjoyable to use (focusing, more specifically). Which is why I haven't been changing lenses back to the 50mm when I'm done with indoor photo taking.

Also, and I'm channeling my father here, 40mm is a great focal range for taking "people-in-front-of-landscapes". In the minimal amount of use in this regard I've had at this focal length over the past few weeks (walks in my neighbourhood), I tend to agree.



ecka said:


> Erikerodri said:
> 
> 
> > How are you guys liking this lens compared to the 50mm 1.8 canon? I'd like to get the pancake but if it isn't as sharp or produce comparable images, I feel like it isn't worth it but that is me.
> ...


----------



## jcollett (Mar 27, 2013)

I own the original EF 50 1.8 from 1987 and the EF 40 STM. I also had purchased FoCal Pro to do AFMA along with running some focus testing. From this photographer's point of view, there is no argument. The 40 kicks the living daylights out of the 50 in resolution. The 50 may have a wider aperature, but from 2.8 out, the resolution drops off precipitously. The 40's chart is essentially flat from wide open to point of diffraction on my 5D mark ii. FoCal puts it at F/11 I think.

For other's who find criticisms for not purchasing this lens, well I find the rationalizations rather mind boggling. This lens can be purchased for less than $200. It has a simple design. I think the hardest thing people have with this is that it can best a >$2000 zoom purchase for its focal length. We want to think that the more complicated and expensive something is, the more inherently better it becomes in all aspects. This is simply not true.

I wanted to get the Sigma 35 1.4 but find it hard to justify $900 when the $149 I spent does the job so well for the vast majority of situations the focal length gets used.

My 2 cents at least.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 27, 2013)

Has anyone compared the 40 to the non-IS 35mm 2.0? I already have the 35, so the 40 would seem redundant. But if the AF, sharpness, etc. is much better I would think about replacing the 35 with the 40. I'd be giving up a stop though.

Thoughts?


----------



## Roger Jones (Mar 27, 2013)

jcollett said:


> I wanted to get the Sigma 35 1.4 but find it hard to justify $900 when the $149 I spent does the job so well for the vast majority of situations the focal length gets used.
> 
> My 2 cents at least.



I think its a bit of stretch to compare the sigma to the pancake. The DOF on the sigma is much more narrow and the bokah is much softer. I wish the sigma was less expensive but I think its in a different league than the photy.


----------



## caMARYnon (Mar 27, 2013)

I am very happy with it's macro capability. With a 25mm kenko extension tube and a +3 AC Kenko close-up filter you could achieve about 0,95x - very very close to 1,00x of my 100mm macro - with excellent sharpness and details. The only bad thing is minimum working distance = about 4cm - 1,5 inches.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 27, 2013)

I love my 40!


----------



## Dianoda (Mar 27, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> I love my 40!



Same here, it's such a perfect pairing for unobtrusive general photography on my 5D. I think it and a 6D would make a wonderful compact/stealth kit. Canon really needs to make an equivalent lens for EF-S mount, the shorty 40's just a bit too much telephoto for my tastes on APS-C.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 27, 2013)

I've a 40 mm Voightlander and it's a nice lens, but I can't make 40, or 35 mm primes work for me (that's on FF or equivalent focal length). Most of my shots are 30 mm and wider, or 45 mm and longer. Anything in between is occasional only and best covered by a zoom. So no 40 mm Canon for me :


----------



## edknuff (Mar 27, 2013)

I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.


----------



## caMARYnon (Mar 27, 2013)

edknuff said:


> I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.


agreed, usually set contrast +1 or +2 and color sat +1 in DPP.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 27, 2013)

caMARYnon said:


> edknuff said:
> 
> 
> > I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.
> ...



It's a useful lens for high contrast scenes then


----------



## cliffwang (Mar 27, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> caMARYnon said:
> 
> 
> > edknuff said:
> ...



+1
It's a useful lens. I really like the pancake design. I really have a lot of fun with this lens. Hopefully Canon can make 30mm pancake lens, so I will like to buy it and use it on SL1.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 28, 2013)

Dianoda said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > I love my 40!
> ...



Felt the same with my 60D. I like it much more on FF


----------

