# Which lens is better for Street Photography, the EF 40mm STM or EF 50mm 1.8 II?



## pulseimages (Jan 18, 2015)

Trying to decide which lens is better to use as a low profile lens for street photography on a Canon 6D. With the Canon 40mm STM you have the pancake size and metal mount and with the 50mm 1.8 II you have the extra stop of light gathering ability but less robust build quality though it is called the "Nifty Fifty".

Recommendations?


----------



## Ruined (Jan 18, 2015)

pulseimages said:


> Trying to decide which lens is better to use as a low profile lens for street photography on a Canon 6D. With the Canon 40mm STM you have the pancake size and metal mount and with the 50mm 1.8 II you have the extra stop of light gathering ability but less robust build quality though it is called the "Nifty Fifty".
> 
> Recommendations?



I would pass on the 50mm f/1.8 II and instead get either the 40mm f/2.8 STM or if you can afford it the 35mm f/2.0 IS USM. The 50mm has an antiquated focus motor and ugly angular bokeh. Both the 35mm IS and 40 STM offer pleasant bokeh, but the 35mm IS is noticeably superior overall while still being somewhat low profile.


----------



## Twostones (Jan 18, 2015)

I second the recommendation for the 35mm f2.0 IS USM. It is a great lens and the IS will improve your keeper rate. I like using it on a Canon Elan 7NE film body. Another good choice if you get close is the 28mm f2.8 IS USM. Both lenses will focus faster than the 50mm 1.8 and are wider for street photography. If you want to have some fun get a Canon film body with the EF mount and shoot pushed Black and white film or box speed color film. It gets addicitng and the images are really different and well worth it.


----------



## fabio (Jan 18, 2015)

Hello...  I have both the 50mm and the 40mm pancake(and the 6D), and I always choose the forty, its a very good lens, sharp, and you don´t find a lens with lower profile, forget the 50mm, choose between the 40mm or the 35 f2 is...


----------



## e17paul (Jan 18, 2015)

I have owned the 50/1.8 II, it has great optics for the price, but so does the 40/2.8 STM according to reviews. 

With a 6D, you will very rarely need the extra stop of light. I use f/2.8 and 1/30 at ISO 6400 for shooting in a nightclub once a month. Only if you are concerned about poster size printing of photos taken in darkness should you consider limiting yourself to a lower ISO, I'm happy with ISO 6400 for publishing on the web. 

The only advantage I can see of the nifty fifty is the greater ability to isolate subjects by shallow focus. Otherwise, both have no focus scale, and I don't consider the wobbly focus ring of the 50 to be an advantage. Neither has super fast super silent USM, the 50 has a noisy AFD motor used by EF lenses since 1987, the 40 has a modern low cost quieter focus motor.

I bought a 50/1.8 with my first DSLR (my first SLR was back in 1988), and soon found the speed was not required. I sold it in favour of the slower 50/2.5 macro, which is my default street lens. When I need something wider I switch to the 24. I suspect that the colour rendition of the 40 will be better than older designs of Canon glass.


----------



## Snodge (Jan 18, 2015)

I have the 50 and the 40 mentioned above, and I use the 40mm on my 5D3 - the 50mm is gathering dust; each time I think I'll make an effort to use it, I rediscover the hideous sound of the motor and remember the horrid bokeh that can occur, and on goes the 40mm which I think is a fantastic lens...


----------



## MintChocs (Jan 18, 2015)

I have both but I rarely use the 50mm. I don't think I have even tried to use it for street photography. I quite like the 40mm for street as its a bit of both wide angle and telephoto, sort of here and there but neither.


----------



## donn (Jan 18, 2015)

pulseimages said:


> Trying to decide which lens is better to use as a low profile lens for street photography on a Canon 6D. With the Canon 40mm STM you have the pancake size and metal mount and with the 50mm 1.8 II you have the extra stop of light gathering ability but less robust build quality though it is called the "Nifty Fifty".
> 
> Recommendations?



I have a 40mm with the 6D and I find it very convenient and flexible to have. Nice IQ, nice build quality and compact. I had the 50mm 1.8 II, although it has a plastic mount, I did not manage to break it after years of use. 6D can handle high ISO very well, that extra stop from 50mm can be very well compensated. Although if you're doing a lot of portraits in the streets, the shallower DOF that the 50mm offers at 1.8 is better. Subjectively speaking.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Jan 18, 2015)

have both 40 and the 50 mk1 both work well with street the 40 on a sl1 even better. 

when I was doing street with film I used the 85mm1.8 fd on a FTb n camera 

so I like the tele look on street


----------



## slclick (Jan 18, 2015)

The pancake's optics are far superior. The contrast, color rendition and clarity blow away the nifty. Plus you get a discrete size, metal mount and a much tougher build. I also think the FL is better suited for Street work. I have it on my SL1 and it's cute but don't let that fool you, it can produce beautiful images.But possible a nicer street FL is the EF-S 24. The two make an outstanding combo. The 50 hunts too much and unless you are adept at prefocusing and shooting manually it's not worth it.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 18, 2015)

That's so funny, I was just comparing the two lenses today. 

I wouldn't shoot the 50mm wide open. Both are solid @ f/8... both are really good at f/2.8. I personally think i would perfer the 40mm. I have the 40mm & never use it, but that is because of my other lenses i own.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 18, 2015)

Ruined said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > Trying to decide which lens is better to use as a low profile lens for street photography on a Canon 6D. With the Canon 40mm STM you have the pancake size and metal mount and with the 50mm 1.8 II you have the extra stop of light gathering ability but less robust build quality though it is called the "Nifty Fifty".
> ...


I also second the 35mm f2 IS USM


----------



## zim (Jan 18, 2015)

Of those two lenses for me the 40 wins by a country mile. It's a fantastic street lens so innocuous, no one takes it seriously it's just not 'agressive', used it in Rome/NY/London, great for stitching too in a tight space. In poor light (evening) I'd imaging the 35 1.4L would be hard to beat (different price range though!)


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 18, 2015)

I have the 50 f1.8, 40 f2.8, and the 35 f2.0 IS (and the old 35 f2.0). The 50 is in storage. I much prefer the 40 over the 50 on FF or crop. For low profile -- and price -- it can't be beat. Between the 50 and 40 for street photography, go for the 40. It's not only sharper, it's lower profile, better built, and focusing is faster and quieter.


However, for this focal range, the 35 f2.0 IS is a great lens and the one that I would grab. Still low profile, very sharp, focuses quicker and quieter than the 40 and a stop faster. You may not need the speed, but it offers smaller DOF and more versatility with IS. If you want to work with slower shutter speeds for selective blur, the IS will come in handy. Arguably, for people shots where you typically want 1/60 second or faster, the IS won't help much.


----------



## timmy_650 (Jan 18, 2015)

Out of the two 40mm hands down. I dont care for the 50mm 1.8 on my 6d. I really liked it when i shot crop. On my 6D the Af is too slow and noise for me.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jan 18, 2015)

Easy decision - unless the subject will pose for you, any reason to go for the 50 is completely outweighed by the slow focusing.


----------



## Rams_eos (Jan 19, 2015)

Hi,
I don't have the 5Omm but I do have the 40mm and either with T3i or 6D, I like it. It is light, small and very sharp.
For street photography, you definitively don't look like a serious photographer with the 40mm  which is an advantage in some situation


----------



## tolusina (Jan 19, 2015)

I have both the 40mm and the 50 f/1.8.
The 40 is what is on my 6D about 98%, it suits me very well. I'm annoyed by the lack of mechanically coupled manual focus ring and the squeal of the STM motor, it could focus faster but overall, it's my favorite lens ever.

I use the 50 primarily for recurring auto repair shop work where lighting generally is between poor and lousy, absolute image quality is irrelevant, at f/1.8 the viewfinder is brighter with EG-S screen.

The 50's focus speed and focus hunting have both been mentioned in this thread, here's my take;
The focusing mechanisms seem to me to be extremely fast, maybe too fast. 
It seems to me that the focus moves so fast that it can't stop in time, overshoots, then comes back to focus sharply.
It doesn't seem to me that it's a matter of missing and hunting for focus though.
End result is effectively the same as hunting, the overshoot and return takes time effectively equal to slow focus.
I have had lenses on my Nikons that had trouble focusing, hunt and hunt, back and forth, very frustrating, Canon 50 is not like that at all, it finds and nails focus but too often on the 2nd try after it has passed and comes back.

The cheapness of the build makes mounting the 50 feel kind of like changing into dirty clothes to do a dirty job, can't wait to finish, shower and change into clean. 

I've found use for the 50 f/1.8 but cheap, sheesh...... At least it's inexpensive.

If I could only have one lens it'd be the 40, I mostly work as though the 40 is my only lens. 
I've been through zooms in various ranges, I'm back to basics.


----------



## ecka (Jan 19, 2015)

50/1.8 AF noise alone could compromise the low profile, unless it is a very noisy street .
40 STM works for me.


----------



## jepabst (Jan 19, 2015)

To me it depends on the kind of street photography you are doing. If you are someone who likes street photography because the people are interesting to you; I'd go with the 50mm. However, if you are someone how enjoys street photography for the details in buildings, street food, cars, ect... you would likely want the 40mm for the extra width. They are both fine lenses, but I'm guessing you'll outgrow either of them pretty quickly. The 50 sounds about as horrible as any lens I've ever used.

Personally; I'd go with the 40mm over the 50 f/1.8 -- but I wouldn't want to ever give up my 50mm f/1.4

Anyway, I would think about what the content is - and to each their own. I'm sure there are great street photographers using the 40 and an equal number using a 50 - but I would guess than not very many great street photographers are running around with the 50 f/1.8.


----------



## pwp (Jan 20, 2015)

I'm with everyone else on this...skip the 50 f/1.8II and choose the 40 pancake. I had the 40 for a while, it was sharp, quiet, had fast AF and was deliciously compact. And cheap! You'll probably have no trouble getting a perfect used one for under $100. Superficial people like me who bought them when they first came out, seduced by the fun factor, are finding they're sitting unused after the initial fascination wore off. But then I've always been a sucker for a pancake...

That doesn't mean the 40 is not a great lens, it just didn't fit with my first choice work-a-day glass which are the three-high selling f/2.8 L zooms. The 40 comprehensively outclasses the 50 f/1.8II in almost every respect. 

-pw


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 20, 2015)

I've never owned the 50mm f/1.8 so cannot offer any real feedback on that lens specifically, however on the 50mm focal length... on a couple of occasions I've found the 50mm f/1.4 a bit too long in areas with limited space. Whenever I pack a camera bag I always pop in the 40mm STM (or the EF-S 24mm if I'm shooting on APS-C). They are compact, lightweight, inconspicuous lenses which can deliver great detail as well as useful close-focus capabilities.


----------



## mpphoto (Jan 20, 2015)

Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II. I don't think the AF is that slow. Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II. They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake. First, I wouldn't get much for it. Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 20, 2015)

If the Pancake is an option, the Pancake is always the correct choice.


----------



## R1-7D (Jan 20, 2015)

9VIII said:


> If the Pancake is an option, the Pancake is always the correct choice.



Love my pancake!


----------



## ecka (Jan 20, 2015)

mpphoto said:


> Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.
> 
> I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II. I don't think the AF is that slow. Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II. They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.
> 
> Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake. First, I wouldn't get much for it. Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.



TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 20, 2015)

ecka said:


> mpphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake. If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm. I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II. The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size. My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.
> ...


Curious. The-Digital-Picture.com confirms your note on vignetting, but the bokeh looks pretty good. I use mine wide open most of the time (which is one reason for buying an f2.0 lens) and haven't noticed the vignetting at all. I have no complaints on bokeh, but then my subject matter hasn't revealed it much.

You make a good point on value. The pancake is an incredible lens for a great price. The 35 IS shines in low light, action, and creative slow shutter shots. One needs to determine whether these scenarios are worth the extra price tag.


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 20, 2015)

Had and sold the 50 1.8 (that should say something). Then got the 50 1.4 which is now gathering dust since I got the 40. Any issues with low light or IQ just don't matter when I can slip the 40 into my pocket and take with me no matter what body or other lenses I m using.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 20, 2015)

9VIII said:


> If the Pancake is an option, the Pancake is always the correct choice.



hehe! 
+1 
8)

Had and sold the 50/1.8. Have the 50/1.4, but hardly use it. Also got the 40/2.8 and like it. Currently I only got the EOS-M to use it with. 
Don't have the 35/2 IS, but consider it mainly a video lens. To me not worth it "for stills" only. Especially for street photography. Shutter times mostly used in street with typically "not very fast moving" subjects can be hand-held without IS with 40/2.8.


----------



## ecka (Jan 20, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > mpphoto said:
> ...



Well, 35 IS bokeh may be lacking the smoothness in a specific focus range, just like 40 STM does, but it also has that "directional pattern" towards the edges and corners, which (IMHO) makes it even worse. Maybe it's not that obvious on crop cameras, but on FF it looks pretty bad.
About the vignetting. It may not show if you are shooting JPGs with the peripheral illumination correction turned on.


----------



## rhysb123 (Jan 22, 2015)

I had the 40mm, sold it the other week to get the Sigma 35.

Really, REALLY miss the 40mm (even though the 35 is great!).


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 22, 2015)

rhysb123 said:


> I had the 40mm, sold it the other week to get the Sigma 35.
> 
> Really, REALLY miss the 40mm (even though the 35 is great!).


I presume because of the size?


----------



## rhysb123 (Jan 22, 2015)

Because of the size, weight and IQ. 

IQ was superb


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 22, 2015)

rhysb123 said:


> Because of the size, weight and IQ.
> 
> IQ was superb



I'm surprised the sigma doesn't trounce the 40.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jan 22, 2015)

the 40mm is newer, the color is very vivid and its sharp vs the 501.8 how ever brighter is always best for lower light.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 22, 2015)

ecka said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...


With apologies to a guy named Jared, I SHOOT RAW. Still, subject matter often determines the degree with which certain lens flaws are visible. My favorite shots from the 35 IS are of the first dance at recent wedding. The newlyweds are in the middle with guests, floors, and darkly light walls occupying the corners. Vignetting isn't noticeable here. I need to shoot an evenly lit, white wall at f2.0 to see the vignetting where it is noticeable.

However, I'm more inclined to recommend the 40 pancake for street photography, if the focal length matches the OP's need.

As luck would have it, I'm planning a weekend trip where my main need will be a 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. But, I want a shorter lens for candid moments when out and about. I also want to travel light, so plan to leave the second body and the 24-70 home. So, I started playing with the 35 IS and the 40 with this in mind. I must say, with a full-frame body, the 40 does quite well in low light and it is much more inconspicuous -- and it is SHARP. The 40 is my choice for this trip and I think it would be the best option for OP.


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2015)

What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 23, 2015)

slclick said:


> What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)



Yes! Thise teo pancakes make a very decent combo on an SL1/100D.

I'd love to have the same for my new 5d iii. But ungortunately, the 24 pancake is only EF-S.


----------



## slclick (Jan 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > What's better than the 50 or 40? On my SL1, the EF-S 24 2.8 (with the forty in my pocket)
> ...



The 40 IS the same as the 24 on a crop, well close enough. I love the 40 on my Mk3


----------



## sdsr (Jan 23, 2015)

It depends in part on what sort of street photography you do and on what sort of streets: in some situations 40mm will be too long, in others too wide (and if you're photographing people, how close are you willing to get? 50mm may be too short), whereas if you want to be able to get shallow focus and/or minimize noise 50 1.8 is better than 40 2.8. If stealth matters, the 40mm has quieter and faster (and probably more accurate) AF. Neither weighs much, and neither is big enough to be more noticeable than the other when mounted on a 6D body (who would be scared away by 6D + 50mm 1.8 but not by 6D + 40mm?); if not being noticed is important, get a smaller camera that can be used silently. If lots of smooth bokeh matters much, look elsewhere. 

Lenstip just re-evaluated the 50m 1.8 - you may want to read their review:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=424

You can, of course, get better lenses than either, but they'll be bigger and heavier and, depending on how you view your images, the differences in image quality may not matter. Neither lens you're considering is expensive enough to be a worrying waste of money.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 24, 2015)

slclick said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Yes. I was not clear enough: i would like to have an EF 24/2.8 pancake ... as small, cheap and good as the ef 40/2.8. And a EF 75/2.4 pancake in addition.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 24, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Yes. I was not clear enough: i would like to have an EF 24/2.8 pancake ... as small, cheap and good as the ef 40/2.8. And a EF 75/2.4 pancake in addition.



Just get the 24 f/2.8 IS. It's a gem of a lens, and it's fairly small.


----------

