# The Shorty Forty MTF Chart Comparison



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 8, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/the-shorty-forty-mtf-chart-comparison/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/the-shorty-forty-mtf-chart-comparison/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/the-shorty-forty-mtf-chart-comparison/"></a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM


</strong>Below are some comparison MTF charts of the 50 f/1.8 II, 50 f/1.4 & 40 f/2.8 STM.</p>
<p>The lens looks pretty decent in the center, and tails off a bit in the corners. However, it looks better than both of the current non L 50′s in the Canon lineup.</p>
<p>I also dig the moniker “Shorty Forty” for the new pancake. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7170.msg131806#msg131806" target="_blank">Taemobig on our forum</a> may or may not have come up with the name.</p>
<div id="attachment_10262" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/40pancakemtf.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-10262" title="40pancakemtf" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/40pancakemtf-575x194.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="194" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Comparison MTF To the 50 f/1.4 & 50 f/1.8 II - Click for Larger</p></div>
<p><strong>Preorder links


</strong>Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM $199 <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/870179-REG/Canon_40mm_f_2_8_EF_Pancake.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H</a></strong> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA4028.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00894YP00/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=canorumo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00894YP00" target="_blank">Amazon</a></p>
<p><em>thanks mattbru</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## max (Jun 8, 2012)

yeah but it is f/2.8...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 8, 2012)

max said:


> yeah but it is f/2.8...



Sure... but i think the point isn't to make an amazing low light lens, but a small one... I'm now sold on it... it is wider (focal range) and smaller than the 50 i have on my 450D almost every day... And for 200$, it is no brainer for me!


----------



## seta666 (Jun 8, 2012)

Well, black lines show maximum aperture so it is normal for the f2.8 lens to be sharper than the other 2; at f8 it is the sharpest of the three but I also guess that fast lenses with biger glass have more complicated designs. 

Whe I so this lens anouncement I inmediately thought of the C/Y carl zeiss tessar 45/2.8, known to be an ultrasharp lens. In the past I was thinking to buy that one for my 5D mkII but it is know to hit the mirror so this 40/2.8 seems as a good alternative. I find 40/2.8 quite usefull for walkaround, at least for full frame cameras

regards


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 8, 2012)

It's MTF is quite impressive all things considering... just dont drop it, or sneeze on it, or pass gas near it... haha


----------



## kode (Jun 8, 2012)

I made the same observations re the MTF graphs. It looks really good compared to the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, neither of which are bad optically. I'm just about to preorder it, but it'll apparently start shipping as late as late august/early september over here.



awinphoto said:


> It's MTF is quite impressive all things considering... just dont drop it, or sneeze on it, or pass gas near it... haha



Compared to the 50/1.8 II, I'm willing to bet the build quality is metric miles ahead. Half the size, same weight.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 8, 2012)

kode said:


> I made the same observations re the MTF graphs. It looks really good compared to the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, neither of which are bad optically. I'm just about to preorder it, but it'll apparently start shipping as late as late august/early september over here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just wish the MF ring didn't look like such an afterthought. The MF ring on L lenses are wider than this lens is total most likely. I just hope, with the pancake design, that OOF bokeh doesn't look like crap and the element doesn't extend when focusing.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jun 8, 2012)

This only shows how badly Canon needs to update their 50 f1.4!


----------



## garyploski (Jun 8, 2012)

Noob at reading these charts here. The x and y axis are not labelled, what should be there?


----------



## garyploski (Jun 8, 2012)

Also, there is no legend for what the lines represent. ???


----------



## kode (Jun 8, 2012)

garyploski said:


> Also, there is no legend for what the lines represent. ???


This is a good read on how to read MTF graphs:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 8, 2012)

Ladies unt chentlemen, ve haff a veener!

With an MTF chart like that, there's basically nothing left to complain about. Sure, it's only f/2.8, but so are the 16-35, the 24-70, the 70-200, and the fast supertelephotos. "Only" f/2.8 for a lens with this image quality, this size, silent full-time manual autofocus, all in a package hardly bigger than its rear lens cap?

Sign me up!

b&


----------



## kode (Jun 8, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I just wish the MF ring didn't look like such an afterthought. The MF ring on L lenses are wider than this lens is total most likely. I just hope, with the pancake design, that OOF bokeh doesn't look like crap and the element doesn't extend when focusing.



Certainly. The focus ring is probably as large as they could make it, more or less, but it'll still beat the 50/1.8 II focus ring (and it has FTM, to boot).

Background rendering with pancake lenses can be really good, so I share your hopes there. Press release (or at least dpreview) says internal focusing, so I guess it shouldn't extend?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 8, 2012)

side by side + above .8 = I'll take one


----------



## rpt (Jun 8, 2012)

garyploski said:


> Also, there is no legend for what the lines represent. ???



Don't worry about it. Read, google, YouTube and it will not need legends. I was there a few months back. now a MTF chart does not rattle me...


----------



## garyploski (Jun 8, 2012)

Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 8, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> side by side + above .8 = I'll take one


Well, and on APS-C, the corners seem like they could still be fairly sharp. By the MTF chart, its stronger than the 50mm f/1,8 until the very edge of an APS-C sensor


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sorry, but these charts looks very much a marketing trick.

What's the point of comparing lenses at maximum aperture, if it's not the same? Not surprising that the pancake is sharper @f/2.8 than the fifty @f/1.8. Let's compare them both @f/2.8 and let's see. Even @f/1.8 the fifty is not far behind, I would not be surprised to see it catch up by f/2.8.

The lines @f/8 might well be a measurement of maximum sharpness, but honestly, who cares? Who's buying these lenses to shoot @f/8?

I remain of the same idea, unless you shoot a lot of videos this pancake is a waste of money, as little as it could be.


----------



## dok (Jun 8, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> The lines @f/8 might well be a measurement of maximum sharpness, but honestly, who cares? Who's buying these lenses to shoot @f/8?


Probably a lot of people. Simply because there are a lot of people who like prime lenses and sometimes prefer them over zooms (for reasons that have been already debated). And then, I guess these people care about the IQ not only wide open because they also shoot landscapes with it. It's as simple as that.
I'm part of these people and I would be willing to buy if the IQ proved to be good from f/2.8 to f/11.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 8, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Sorry, but these charts looks very much a marketing trick.



Eh, Canon's MTF charts have a well-deserved reputation. Bad individual copies of lenses excepted, I don't think anybody's ever come up with a lens that didn't perform similarly to their published charts.



> What's the point of comparing lenses at maximum aperture, if it's not the same?



Because you want to know how well the lens performs at its maximum aperture. What would be the point of an MTF chart for the 400 f/2.8 that only had lines for f/5.6?

The f/8 lines are there for the apples-to-apples comparison you're hinting that you want.



> Not surprising that the pancake is sharper @f/2.8 than the fifty @f/1.8. Let's compare them both @f/2.8 and let's see. Even @f/1.8 the fifty is not far behind, I would not be surprised to see it catch up by f/2.8.



Considering how much better the 40 is at f/8, I rather doubt either 50 will be as sharp at f/2.8 as the 40. It could happen, but I doubt it.



> The lines @f/8 might well be a measurement of maximum sharpness, but honestly, who cares? Who's buying these lenses to shoot @f/8?



Are you kidding? Or are you not a photographer?

Seriously, wide-open shooting is the exception in the world of photography, not the rule. Sure, there are lots of types of photography that call for big apertures, but there're many more that require the entire subject to be sharp. And f/8 is the perfect aperture for that -- it's close to if not at every lens's optimum performance; it's small enough for a generous depth of field; and it's not too small for diffraction to muddy things up. There's a reason why the saying is, "f/8 and be there," and not "wide open and be there."



> I remain of the same idea, unless you shoot a lot of videos this pancake is a waste of money, as little as it could be.



Again, missing the point.

Sure, the video crowd is going to eat this up with the silent autofocussing and what-not.

But I'm sure you'll find an awful lot of pros getting these as replacement body caps, and then using them in place of digicams. It's the perfect pro's party camera, for example, especially with that one-foot minimum focus distance. Imagine a wedding photographer getting out on the dance floor, _in the middle of the Conga line,_ with one of these for what I mean.

b&


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 8, 2012)

dok said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > The lines @f/8 might well be a measurement of maximum sharpness, but honestly, who cares? Who's buying these lenses to shoot @f/8?
> ...



If you trust Canon's MTF charts -- and there's no good reason not to -- then Canon is unambiguously stating that the Shorty McForty has better image quality than the 50mm f/1.4. Actually, it should have image quality on a par with the 35 f/1.4L, (version 1 of) the 24 - 70 and the 17-40. The 35 f/2 doesn't come close.

I'm starting to think that the joker in the other thread was right -- the reason this isn't an L lens is because there's not enough room on the barrel for the red stripe!

b&


----------



## peederj (Jun 8, 2012)

Those MTFs do NOT make this lens look better than either of the non-L 50's. Draw the black lines for 2.8 on the faster primes, I think the 40 would come up well short. I'm also guessing CAs are bad enough they needed that CA correction feature before they were willing to ship these.

I don't see this as making it into my kit...the nifty fifty (I refer to the 1.4 as "nifty," not the 1.8 ) is small enough, and two stops faster. I'm guessing IQ here is not much better than whatever kit zoom you might otherwise carry, and if size matters most, I'd wait for a mirrorless body first and see whether these even fit that.


----------



## paulc (Jun 8, 2012)

A few things worth noting:

1. One hundred and ninety-nine dollars.

2. The 5.0/1.8 from a build quality is a fierce pile of junk.

3. 50mm is a smidge long to slap onto a crop body.


I expect this to supplant the 50/1.8 as every new SLR user's second lens.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jun 8, 2012)

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that many people with DSLRs, pros and consumers, like to use their cameras when they hang out with their friends and go out. The camera isn't the problem, it's that huge frickin lens popping out. With a flat lens like this you can throw your camera in a big jacket pocket or a purse and not have to worry about it. Something like this makes your DSLR an alternative for taking a little point and shoot.

I don't know why people are angry/upset about this lens either. Just don't get it if you don't like it. It's not like Canon has halted all their other things to focus on this little guy.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 8, 2012)

It will be an excellent walk around lens for FF, assuming the CA is good. It will be a good lens for the grand parents with APS-C for taking picture of the grand kids. It is just the perfect focal length (64mm equivalent).I still wish that Canon will come up a EF-S 30mm f2.8.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 8, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that many people with DSLRs, pros and consumers, like to use their cameras when they hang out with their friends and go out. The camera isn't the problem, it's that huge frickin lens popping out. With a flat lens like this you can throw your camera in a big jacket pocket or a purse and not have to worry about it. Something like this makes your DSLR an alternative for taking a little point and shoot.
> 
> I don't know why people are angry/upset about this lens either. Just don't get it if you don't like it. It's not like Canon has halted all their other things to focus on this little guy.


Totally agree, Well said. If you do not like it just do not buy it. It is the freedom of choice and Canon has just given us an excellent choice.


----------



## boateggs (Jun 8, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that many people with DSLRs, pros and consumers, like to use their cameras when they hang out with their friends and go out. The camera isn't the problem, it's that huge frickin lens popping out. With a flat lens like this you can throw your camera in a big jacket pocket or a purse and not have to worry about it. Something like this makes your DSLR an alternative for taking a little point and shoot.
> 
> I don't know why people are angry/upset about this lens either. Just don't get it if you don't like it. It's not like Canon has halted all their other things to focus on this little guy.


True dat! And it has a metal mount, one thing that bugged me about the nifty 50. I guess the metal mount costs $80


----------



## gmrza (Jun 8, 2012)

Rocky said:


> It will be an excellent walk around lens for FF, assuming the CA is good. It will be a good lens for the grand parents with APS-C for taking picture of the grand kids. It is just the perfect focal length (64mm equivalent).I still wish that Canon will come up a EF-S 30mm f2.8.



That is my main question: chromatic and spherical aberration. How does it perform in that respect?


----------



## aZhu (Jun 8, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > It will be an excellent walk around lens for FF, assuming the CA is good. It will be a good lens for the grand parents with APS-C for taking picture of the grand kids. It is just the perfect focal length (64mm equivalent).I still wish that Canon will come up a EF-S 30mm f2.8.
> ...



We'll have to wait till people start getting their hands on them and begin doing some tests. I don't know of anyone with a pre-production model that has shown sample images yet. If anyone knows, please share! I pre-ordered mine already. Just hope it really will released at the end of June and not postponed till God knows when...


----------



## gmrza (Jun 9, 2012)

aZhu said:


> We'll have to wait till people start getting their hands on them and begin doing some tests. I don't know of anyone with a pre-production model that has shown sample images yet. If anyone knows, please share! I pre-ordered mine already. Just hope it really will released at the end of June and not postponed till God knows when...



At least initially, I see this lens being popular purely because people are buying it out of curiosity. At $200 odd, it's worth taking a chance.


----------



## ybrankov (Jun 9, 2012)

I can't see why I would need a 40/2.8. Almost anyone of us owns the 50mm cheapo. The angular difference is one step back with the 50mm lens. The aperture is 1.3 stops wider in favor of the 50mm. What would be my justification to buy the pancake? One of the reasons may be the pancake factor, but in my case it does not bring value to the table. I will pay $200 any day for an EF50/1.8 III STM with the build quality of the 40/2.8 to upgrade my plastic "prototype" ;-)

BTW, I'm having a hard time agreeing to the statement that the 40mm MTF charts are better than the two 50mm ones. The black lines are not comparable as the 40mm is 2.8 only. The blue ones which reflect the f/8.0 performance are generally very similar. The 40mm even shows a considerable sharpness dip around the 15mm radius ( <0.8 ). And, let's not forget these are calculated diagrams which are not guaranteed to accurately reflect real-world performance.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jun 9, 2012)

max said:


> yeah but it is f/2.8...



It's starting to make sense. The *STM Lenses* were designed as *Video Lenses*.

*"To leverage the unique, new shooting functions of the EOS Rebel T4i, such as EOS Full HD Movie with continuous AF, Canon is introducing two new unique lenses, the new EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens and new EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. Both new STM lenses includes Canon's new Stepping Motor technology, which allows the lenses to smoothly and silently focus, ..."* http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248057dd10

So there you go, the STM lenses are *NOT Still Camera Lenses*, they are *Video Lenses*. Most *Hollywood movies are shot between f/2.8 and F/5.6, therefore f/2.8 makes sense.* If you shoot portraits or street (or other things that need fast lenses), *this lenses Is Not meant for you.*   

Before you tell me *Paper-Thin-DOF is Cinematic*, spend a day at your local Multiplex. *How many of the Top-Ten films (the movies people line-up to see) feature Paper-Thin-DOF* ???


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jun 9, 2012)

Rocky said:


> It will be an excellent walk around lens for FF, assuming the CA is good.



It could work well on my* FFFilm Canon Elan 7n.* I normally shoot B&W (Kodak BW400CN,Kodak P3200 or Adox CMS20), so CA isn't a problem. 

The lens I really want is the New Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G iens for my *Nikon F100 FFFilm* camera. Canon seems to have abandoned the middle  while Nikon has come out with three reasonably priced f/1.8 lenses (28mm, 50mm and 85mm) in the last year 



> I still wish that Canon will come up a EF-S 30mm f2.8.



That and an EF-S 22mm (=36mm). I'd buy them both.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 10, 2012)

After comparing the MTF chart, The 40 f2.8 is not as sharp as the 50 f 1.8. It will be interesting to see some test report later.


----------



## jweu (Jun 10, 2012)

Rocky said:


> After comparing the MTF chart, The 40 f2.8 is not as sharp as the 50 f 1.8. It will be interesting to see some test report later.



I don't want any test report but more data from Canon! Whats is with 60 and 90 lines per mm, my body has more that 100!

This lens makes the camara very small to have alway with you. Why is this lens not weather sealed „L” ?


----------



## akiskev (Jun 10, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> max said:
> 
> 
> > yeah but it is f/2.8...
> ...


Saw Prometheus yesterday. Only 2 shots with small DOF.
So, paper-thin-dof is photographic, not cinematic ;D


----------



## jweu (Jun 10, 2012)

akiskev said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > max said:
> ...



Even for photography I love my old Tessar 45mm f/2.8 ;-) Unfortunetly there is no focusing screen with split-screen for my 5D.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 11, 2012)

jweu said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



if its not a mk3 these guys do them
http://www.brightscreenstore.com/store/

i got one for my 5Dmk2 to use with MF lenses


----------



## noncho (Jun 11, 2012)

Well, I would like to compare MTF with my nearest 2.8 prime - EF-s 60 2.8 macro:






No comment, I'll wait for real pics from 40 2.8.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 11, 2012)

Its quoted at £229.00 in the UK - £199 in the US.
As a straight conversion this should be £128. 

That extra £100 is the difference between me buying it and not buying it.

It seems as if Canon consistently wants the UK to pay more for their lenses.
I love the canon product designers, but hate their marketing department.


----------

