# Looking for an upgrade to my shorty 40 (indoor/general lens)



## Sneakers (Mar 29, 2014)

I shoot on a t4i and currently own just two lenses - the Canon 85 1.8, and the Canon 40 2.8. I generally use the 85 outdoors and the 40 indoors, and that works pretty well for me.

The quality difference between my two lenses is pretty big though. The bokeh on my 85 is awesome, and it's also super sharp. I know this is a little biased because I generally use it in better lighting conditions, but I think it's objectively a much better lens. I'd like to get something just as good for my indoor uses (parties, pictures of my 1 year old, etc).

One option would be the Sigma 35mm 1.4, which is at the very top of the price range I could consider ($900). Coming in a little less would be the Canon 35mm 2.0. Would I notice enough of a quality upgrade going from the 40 to the 35? Anything else I should be considering?

Thanks.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 29, 2014)

Unless you are wanting a distance scale, very shallow depth of field or both, prepare for disappointment. 

Incidentally the 85 1.8 is _not_ sharper than the 40.

Your two lenses you have are giving a short and medium tele field of view on your t4. They are both very good lenses. I would keep the 40 and get the 24 2.8 IS. This will give you a very moderate wide angle field of view. If you don't want wider than 'standard' get the 28 2.8 IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Incidentally the 85 1.8 is _not_ sharper than the 40.



It might be for the OP, if it needs a focus adjustment (which cannot be done by the user with a Rebel/xxxD body).


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 29, 2014)

Lighting conditions can be the driving factor. Resolution and DR fall and noise increases with higher ISOs. Do you use a flash?

If you're willing to trade DOF for lower ISO, greater blur, then the S35 f/1.4 is a good choice. Plus you can adjust the lens to the body with the dock. If your inside subjects are people, then flash is better when there is more than one subject. For an APS-C camera, I'd opt for the largest aperture possible (so S35 over the Canon 35 f/2 IS). However, if your indoor subjects aren't people, then the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS are fine choices.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally the 85 1.8 is _not_ sharper than the 40.
> ...



Fair point. I should have said not _supposed _ to be sharper


----------



## meli (Mar 29, 2014)

You should really have a look at the 18-35 1.8 Sigma, that lens will make you happy.


----------



## www.andrew-davies.com (Mar 29, 2014)

You should seriously consider the amazing 35mm F2 IS , probably pound for pound THE best prime lens in the canon line up. I am using it and recently sold the 50mm 1.2L as the 35 walks all over it. Also it scores as the top canon prime wide angle in DXO Mark


----------



## Sneakers (Mar 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Incidentally the 85 1.8 is _not_ sharper than the 40.


Interesting. I must just think it is because shooting outdoors allows me to lower ISO and stop it down a little. Or maybe the contrast between in focus subject and blown out background makes the subject "feel" sharper than it really is.

[quote author=Random Orbits]Do you use a flash?[/quote]
No, I don't own anything other than the t4i's built-in flash, and I don't like how it looks in photos. I would consider buying a flash that I can bounce off the ceiling if that's going to improve my indoor photos more than buying a faster lens would.

Thanks for all the recommendations everyone. Lots of stuff for me to research further here.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 30, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> I would consider buying a flash that I can bounce off the ceiling if that's going to improve my indoor photos more than buying a faster lens would.



Yes, it will. 

Buy a big one with a simple dome diffuser. Indoors, where the light can bounce pretty much everywhere, it gives a very nice and even lighting. 

If you cant afford the Canon 600, try a 580 II used. Otherwise the YN568 and Metz 58 AF-2 are also very good. The latter is particularly good when used on camera because of the additional small direct light. But the Yongnuo is super cheap.


----------



## Emil (Mar 30, 2014)

Consider looking for a used 28mm f1.8. I think it works really well with aps-c sized sensors, giving a equivalent full frame view of ~45mm. I used almost exclusively this lens with my 600d.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 30, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally the 85 1.8 is _not_ sharper than the 40.
> ...



It is highly likely that when using the 40 indoors you have lower shutter speeds and / or higher ISO which is resulting in less resolution, but as Neuro pointed out it's possible that your body / 40 mm combo is out of calibration enough to effect the result. 

Try shooting a suitable target or scene ( good contrast) with the 40 using your usual focus method, then do exactly the same thing using live view. Use f2.8, a low iso and _lots_ of light to give a fast shutter speed in the 1/1000 region if you are hand held. Critical sharpness tests can be very misleading at lower speeds due to random shake if hand held even on a wider lens. 

Both sets of results should be the same. ( live view may be darker depending on your method ).


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 30, 2014)

meli said:


> You should really have a look at the 18-35 1.8 Sigma, that lens will make you happy.



I'll second that one. Somewhere... I read that it is like having a bag of primes all in one lens... I never used it... but I like that line.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 30, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally the 85 1.8 is _not_ sharper than the 40.
> ...


No, I don't own anything other than the t4i's built-in flash, and I don't like how it looks in photos. I would consider buying a flash that I can bounce off the ceiling if that's going to improve my indoor photos more than buying a faster lens would.

Thanks for all the recommendations everyone. Lots of stuff for me to research further here.
[/quote]

We all... share that opinion that the built in flash gives those highlights on the face and takes out all of the contours of the face... so you are in good company. But you could try one of these on the cheap... 

http://www.amazon.com/Deluxe-Mirror-Bounce-Device-Cameras/dp/B00H6P5Z1Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1396177850&sr=8-2&keywords=flash+mirror+slr

http://www.amazon.com/Professor-Lightscoop-Version-Universal-Cameras/dp/B0017LT7BO/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1396177850&sr=8-8&keywords=flash+mirror+slr

http://www.amazon.com/Professor-LIGHTSCOOP-Standard-Version-Cleaning/dp/B00HWH7G4W/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1396177850&sr=8-5&keywords=flash+mirror+slr

But a good cheap manual flash will help a good deal... heck... you can get a 430 ex for around $150ish...


----------



## jd7 (Mar 30, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> One option would be the Sigma 35mm 1.4, which is at the very top of the price range I could consider ($900). Coming in a little less would be the Canon 35mm 2.0. Would I notice enough of a quality upgrade going from the 40 to the 35? Anything else I should be considering?
> 
> Thanks.



I have had the 40 2.8 for a while and recently picked up a 35 2 IS, and I'm using them on a 6D. I haven't had a chance to play too much with the 35 yet, but my initial impression is the image quality is pretty similar to the 40. So far I'd say the 35 might be a touch better, but it's not by much. I do notice 35 is wider than 40 - I prefer the 35 for things like street photography, but if you've got anyone reasonably close to the camera then I'd pick the 40 (just that little bit longer means a little bit less enlargement of noses, etc - but of course neither is likely to be a great choice for a close up portrait!). The 35 is pretty sharp even at f2 so you I'd say you get a genuinely usable extra stop there (provided the DOF is enough for your purpose), but the biggest difference is the IS. As long as your subject isn't moving, the IS means you can take sharp handheld shots in MUCH lower light than you can with the 40. Or if there's a bit more light (and a stationary subject), you can use the IS to keep your ISO down that much more.

I might change my mind after I've had more chance to play with the 35, but so far I'd say it's a very nice lens which works as advertised - it's pretty sharp even at f2 and the IS does a good job - but it hasn't wowed me yet (except to the extent I've been able to hand hold shots in very low light). And compared to the 40 it's very expensive, not to mention significantly bigger and heavier (even if it's small and light compared with many lenses), and the IQ is not so different.

To pick up on a few points others have made -
Agree that a good flash would be worth investigating. It can make a huge difference (in the right situation).
I've never used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 but from everything I've read, I'd be taking a good look at one if I was shooting with a crop sensor.
I used a 28 1.8 on crop and did like it as a general walk around lens. It doesn't get good reviews and it does get softer than you'd like pretty quickly once you move away from the centre of the frame, but equally (on crop) I didn't think it was as bad as some people made out. If you're shooting for your own enjoyment, I'd say have a good look at one. If you're shooting professionally, it's weaknesses might be more significant.

I read in a recent thread that Dustin Abbott isn't too far from completing a review of the 35 2 IS. I will be very interested to see what his take on it is. I'm very much in the amateur photographer camp, so I'll be interested to see what someone like Dustin has to say about it.

PS - as another suggestion, maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS if you can find one within your budget (maybe look 2nd hand)? I liked it a lot on crop (well, it does have to be on crop after all!) and the IS can be useful. If it was me shooting with your gear, I think I'd be looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 or a flash (subject to budget of course).


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 30, 2014)

Emil said:


> Consider looking for a used 28mm f1.8. I think it works really well with aps-c sized sensors, giving a equivalent full frame view of ~45mm. I used almost exclusively this lens with my 600d.



+1. I've been using that lens with my 500D. Now, I'm still using it with my 6D and it seems to be sharper than ever. Together with the 50mm F1.8 II, I've got a fairly light combo. The fact that it focuses fast even in low-light is a plus especially indoors. There are lot of people selling theirs after they moved from APS-C to FF due to the kit lens they got when buying their FF. You can get a lot of deals for this lens. For me, I'll keep mine. It's very useful for me. It's sharpest when used @ F2.8 and above but F2.2 is sharp enough especially for portraits.


----------



## Sneakers (Mar 30, 2014)

jd7 said:


> PS - as another suggestion, maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS if you can find one within your budget (maybe look 2nd hand)? I liked it a lot on crop (well, it does have to be on crop after all!) and the IS can be useful. If it was me shooting with your gear, I think I'd be looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 or a flash (subject to budget of course).


I could justify the price of the 17-55 (around $900, same as the Sigma 35mm 1.4 that I'm already considering), if I could convince myself that I wouldn't immediately begin wishing I had faster prime glass for indoor shooting.

I've never rented a lens before, but at that price I might go the rental route before I commit.


----------



## slclick (Apr 1, 2014)

There is no upgrade for a body cap that takes fantastic pictures. Love my pancake.


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 1, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > PS - as another suggestion, maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS if you can find one within your budget (maybe look 2nd hand)? I liked it a lot on crop (well, it does have to be on crop after all!) and the IS can be useful. If it was me shooting with your gear, I think I'd be looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 or a flash (subject to budget of course).
> ...


Any faster than f2.8 you will have DoF issues, so rely on IS and higher ISO, with a touch of flash. The 17-55 is amazing, grab it used, there are a lot of them out there. Otherwise check out the refurbs - http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses/ef-s-17-55-f-28-is-usm-refurbished

I can't believe it's down to $563 - I know I sold mine for $750 last year...


----------



## bholliman (Apr 1, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> Any faster than f2.8 you will have DoF issues



f/2.8 on a crop body will give comparable DOF to f/4.5 on a full frame camera - not all that thin... At 15 feet you have a DOF of 2.83 feet with the 40mm pancake at f/2.8. With a 35mm lens at f/1.4 the DOF is a very reasonable 7.5 inches. There are times I would like less DOF than this, so the faster the lens the better. You can always step down, but can't go wider than your lenses physical maximum aperture.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 1, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Unless you are wanting a distance scale, very shallow depth of field or both, prepare for disappointment.
> 
> Incidentally the 85 1.8 is _not_ sharper than the 40.
> 
> Your two lenses you have are giving a short and medium tele field of view on your t4. They are both very good lenses. I would keep the 40 and get the 24 2.8 IS. This will give you a very moderate wide angle field of view. If you don't want wider than 'standard' get the 28 2.8 IS.



I certainly agree with most of the comments. I have owned the 40mm and now I have the 35mm f2IS and the later is sharper and has IS that allow you to take pictures in very low light at low speeds. It is a general purpose lens in APS-C and excellent walkaround in FF.
If you are not planning to move to FF in the near future, I recommend the 17-55 f2.8IS and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. These two lenses are made for APS-C and offer better IQ and sharpness than many lenses made for FF.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 1, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> I shoot on a t4i and currently own just two lenses - the Canon 85 1.8, and the Canon 40 2.8. I generally use the 85 outdoors and the 40 indoors, and that works pretty well for me.
> 
> The quality difference between my two lenses is pretty big though. The bokeh on my 85 is awesome, and it's also super sharp. I know this is a little biased because I generally use it in better lighting conditions, but I think it's objectively a much better lens. I'd like to get something just as good for my indoor uses (parties, pictures of my 1 year old, etc).
> 
> ...



I know it wasn't one of the requested options, but, if you're willing to spend $900 on a new lens just for indoors, get a 6D on sale and keep using the Pancake (I love the Pancake on my 5D2). The 6D will give you 1.3 stops extra low light performance with the same lens, bring new life to every lens you have now and get from then on, and you have all the benefits associated with having a high end camera (mild weather sealing, AF microadjust, custom settings on the mode dial! wireless connectivity, have you seen how long the battery lasts on the 6D? Shall I go on?).


----------



## wsmith96 (Apr 1, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > PS - as another suggestion, maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS if you can find one within your budget (maybe look 2nd hand)? I liked it a lot on crop (well, it does have to be on crop after all!) and the IS can be useful. If it was me shooting with your gear, I think I'd be looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 or a flash (subject to budget of course).
> ...



watch for Canon's refurb sales. I've seen the 17-55 for under $600 there and you get a year warranty.


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 1, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I have owned the 40mm and now I have the 35mm f2IS and the later is sharper and has IS that allow you to take pictures in very low light at low speeds. It is a general purpose lens in APS-C and excellent walkaround in FF.
> If you are not planning to move to FF in the near future, I recommend the 17-55 f2.8IS and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. These two lenses are made for APS-C and offer better IQ and sharpness than many lenses made for FF.


Since you are familiar with both the 40mm and the 17-55 2.8, could you draw any comparison between those two lenses at the 40mm focal length that they both share? Is the zoom ability the primary reason to consider the 17-55, or would I also notice an increase in performance at 40mm (due to better IQ, or even just due to IS)?

Or to make things more complicated, what about comparing the 35mm prime to the 17-55 at 35mm?

I ask these questions, because I think I'm more attracted to a lens that will get me the occasional stunning photo than I am to versatility. If the 17-55 delivers both stunning photos and versatility, great, but otherwise I think I'd still be leaning towards the Canon or Sigma 35mm.

I greatly appreciate everyone's feedback. Please know that I take all the replies seriously, and use them as a launching point to watch youtube videos and generally learn more about all the lenses you all are recommending.


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 1, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I know it wasn't one of the requested options, but, if you're willing to spend $900 on a new lens just for indoors, get a 6D on sale and keep using the Pancake (I love the Pancake on my 5D2).


I love the out of the box thinking, but I think I'll wait another year or two before I upgrade my camera. I've only had the t4i for a year and a half, and in many ways am still learning how to use it.

I searched this website for 6D sale prices, and only see it going as low as $1600. That's a 78% increase from what I already determined to be the top of my price range!

Good news wife - I brought my lens idea to the canonrumors message board, and decided that instead of a 35mm prime, I'll get a 5d mark 3 and 70-200L!


----------



## verysimplejason (Apr 2, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I know it wasn't one of the requested options, but, if you're willing to spend $900 on a new lens just for indoors, get a 6D on sale and keep using the Pancake (I love the Pancake on my 5D2).
> ...



If you are not doing video, a used 5D classic is also an alternative. You will love it. I've got a 6D already but I like editing those pictures taken by my friend's 5D. Used 5D nowadays are very cheap.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 2, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I know it wasn't one of the requested options, but, if you're willing to spend $900 on a new lens just for indoors, get a 6D on sale and keep using the Pancake (I love the Pancake on my 5D2).
> ...



There are packages where you can buy the 6d a 24-105, a printer and other assorted crap. If you can sell the printer and if you can get a decent price for the 24-105... you might have a 6D for around $1200. Sell the t4i for $450ish... and you are talking about an body upgrade for $750.

It is all conjecture until you get the cash in your hand, but I usually buy and sell my own gear as I progress... small upgrades and treating my gear as commodities that have value and may appreciate in value... well... it has done me well.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 2, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> Sneakers said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I never had a 5dc... so I might be pulling this out of an ass... probably my own. But the 5dc has a max iso of 1600... or was that the max usable iso... I don't remember. With the 18mp line of canons... I think 1600 was the max usable iso for most... but for me, I tolerated 2500. 

So in good light... or even moderate light... it is a solid option... but in piss pot poor light... well... that's the 6D's specialty.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 2, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > I have owned the 40mm and now I have the 35mm f2IS and the later is sharper and has IS that allow you to take pictures in very low light at low speeds. It is a general purpose lens in APS-C and excellent walkaround in FF.
> ...



I found the 35 f/2 IS to be almost same as the 17-55 with both lenses wide open, and slightly sharper at f/2.8. 
This is with both lenses on my 7D and not in any scientific testing at charts, but my trying out a friend's lens over a weekend. If you already like the 35mm focal length based on your 40mm, I don't see why you should choose the zoom. But without having used the 40/2.8 I am not sure the improvement provided by the 35 f/2 will knock your socks off. You are much better off getting a good copy of the 50/1.4 in my opinion.


----------



## verysimplejason (Apr 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Sneakers said:
> ...



Generally, if ISO 1600 is enough for you then 5D should be ok. It can go up to 3200 though...

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-5d-mark-i-vs-ii-vs-iii-review-comparison-19775
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/38

It's still a great starter camera and still better in terms of IQ at any comparable ISO (raw) against any 18mp APS-C camera from Canon.


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 23, 2014)

I ended up ordering the Canon 35 IS if anyone is curious. Looking forward to getting it in the mail and putting it to use!


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> I ended up ordering the Canon 35 IS if anyone is curious. Looking forward to getting it in the mail and putting it to use!



That's a good choice... similar focal length, an additional stop of light, and a bonus of having IS. How much did you spend on it?


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 23, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Sneakers said:
> 
> 
> > I ended up ordering the Canon 35 IS if anyone is curious. Looking forward to getting it in the mail and putting it to use!
> ...


$600 + an extra $50 for the hood. I understand the price fluctuates a little and others have gotten it for $550, but I didn't want to wait indefinitely for a sale/rebate.


----------



## batotman (Apr 23, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> I ended up ordering the Canon 35 IS if anyone is curious. Looking forward to getting it in the mail and putting it to use!



It's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. I didn't care much for any of the 40's I've used. And the 17-55 was the sharpest crop lens I've owned. But I really prefer the prime except when in tight spots and I can't move backwards.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 23, 2014)

Good Choice, I love my 35mm F2 IS it is never off the camera  

www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 23, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> Emil said:
> 
> 
> > Consider looking for a used 28mm f1.8. I think it works really well with aps-c sized sensors, giving a equivalent full frame view of ~45mm. I used almost exclusively this lens with my 600d.
> ...



+1 for the 28mm 1.8. Great little lens.. Usually use it at 2.2 though. Sold the nifty fifty for many reasons.. The 40 is great but would love to get the 35 f2 IS. From hearing so many great things about it!


----------



## CANONisOK (Apr 23, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> I ended up ordering the Canon 35 IS if anyone is curious. Looking forward to getting it in the mail and putting it to use!


I think you made a good choice. And, hey, if it doesn't work out - you can just send it to me. I've always wanted a 35mm prime.


----------



## iowapipe (Apr 23, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Sneakers said:
> 
> 
> > Hjalmarg1 said:
> ...



While I liked my 50mm f/1.4 for particular things, and having bought it for the improved quality over the f/1.8, I regret to say that I fell into the same problem sooooo many others experienced. Even though the lens has been out for years, it has continued its habit of a failing focusing mechanism. 19 months after I bought mine, I started having inconsistent focus on shots over 10 feet away. I ignored advice found on many forums that said to avoid the lens. I 'hoped' that newer lenses had hardware tweaks that solved the mechanical failure. Not so. And the price of repair is too high to justify. It would be smarter to buy a new lens with warranty if I desperately felt the need to replace it with the same 50mm f/1.4 model. Instead I'm putting that money towards other desires, and only very seldom miss the 50 when I want to do something very particular.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Sneakers said:
> ...


Not a bad price given where it started and that we're in the rebate doldrums until the Fall...congrats on the new lens and by all account, it's an awesome one. Be sure to share your photos with us!


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 23, 2014)

While not knowing your financial situation, I can recommend keeping the 40mm. It works well as compact body cap that still has your camera in a ready-condition. Additionally, you may always find situations where you don't want to risk your nice 35mm to the elements you're shooting in. Far better to risk a $150 lens in those instances. Not to mention that it is relatively similar to the 35 and 50 focal lengths to serve as a useful backup in case the unthinkable happens to your primary lenses. Similar to why I kept my Mk I 50mm f/1.8 loooooong after I got the 50mm f/1.4, and still keep it despite also owning the 40mm. They were cheap investments and easy to justify keeping around for those "oh crap" situations. I got my 40mm for $130 open-box from Best Buy when I wandered past their photo cabinet on my way to get a TV. I instantly loved it, despite the fact that I really prefer the 35mm focal length as a matter of choice in shooting.

I have a whole litter of lenses, but the one that is on the camera I always have near me "just-in-case" is the 40mm. Small, unobtrusive, and more than capable of capturing fleeting moments in most documentary situations. The 40mm, a 6D, and a 580EX II now form the cornerstone of my lightweight running photography pack. Sometimes I go out with nothing but that setup and the 135L in my bag when I'm cycling or running with a group or for long treks away from roads during ultra marathons, etc.. Carrying the 24-70 zoom or even one of my 35 1.4s would significantly impact my range given pack space, weight, and food considerations. 

Your situations may not be similar, but consider those situations in your own photography where being light, small, and unobtrusive would be a plus. Not every situation requires IS or the best IQ you have available in your kit at or near a given focal length. 

It's a cheap investment that you've already made.


----------



## Ripley (Apr 23, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Sneakers said:
> ...



Let us know what you think of it once you get it! 

I've just recently "discovered" this lens. I had the 40mm as a lightweight alternative to my f2.8 zooms but sold it because of what it lacks. However, if this alternative offers another stop of light, IS, improved autofocus speed, comparable focal length, comparable IQ, and comparable weight... win. BIG win!


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 24, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> While not knowing your financial situation, I can recommend keeping the 40mm.


That sounds like good advice to me. As an aside, some folks in this thread helped me to see that the 40mm is actually very sharp, and I've grown a new appreciation for the lens over the past couple weeks. Forced myself to take it out into the sunlight and take some stopped down shots. Looks great.

Still wanted the 35 IS for indoor use.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 24, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> BLFPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > While not knowing your financial situation, I can recommend keeping the 40mm.
> ...



Good to hear that you're finding out how good the 40 is. The IS of the 35 plus its excellent sharpness across the frame would make it good for in door - as that it when you do require corner sharpness. 

A few have mentioned the 28/1.8. This may not be suitable for your needs; it is very much an 'art' lens ( pinching Sigmas title) and although razor sharp in the centre it really falls off mid frame. Even stopped down to f8 it can't match say the 24-105 mid frame. However if you want to shoot wide angle shallow depth of field, dreamy type shots it is excellent.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 24, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> I shoot on a t4i and currently own just two lenses - the Canon 85 1.8, and the Canon 40 2.8. I generally use the 85 outdoors and the 40 indoors, and that works pretty well for me.
> 
> The quality difference between my two lenses is pretty big though. The bokeh on my 85 is awesome, and it's also super sharp. I know this is a little biased because I generally use it in better lighting conditions, but I think it's objectively a much better lens. I'd like to get something just as good for my indoor uses (parties, pictures of my 1 year old, etc).
> 
> ...



As many have said, 35mm f/2IS is super sharp, focus very fast and it has very accurate AF, even in low light. I replaced my 40mm f/2.8 that was very sharp but the 35mm f/2IS is sharper and faster. I use it a lot for street photography to group pictures. 35mm(A) 1.4 due to its larger aperture is by many better but, I personally prefer the ability to shoot at 1/5s and still get sharp pictures.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 24, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> I can recommend keeping the 40mm. It works well as compact body cap that still has your camera in a ready-condition. Additionally, you may always find situations where you don't want to risk your nice 35mm to the elements you're shooting in. It's a cheap investment that you've already made.



Agree completely. The 40mm f/2.8 pancake "lives" on my 6D. Small, light, & minimum risk.

Another really fantastic little lens that I use a lot is the Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 pancake. A little "kit" I often carry instead of my 24-105L (which has the "shorted ribbon cable" problem, awaiting repair) consists of the 20mm Voigt, 40mm pancake, and the 85mm f/1.8 USM. The 20/40/85 lengths complement eachother well. Any two of them will fit comfortably into a grey Canon "LP1219" lens bag. I have another lens bag that I use for accessories (handy to be able to take the two of them out quickly at security checkpoints too). I just chuck the two of them & the 6D in a neoprene case (usually with the 40mm mounted) into whatever bag or backpack I'm carrying at the time & go. 

BTW the diminutive 270EX II also fits into the category of small/light/cheap; I consider it a must-have if you've got a camera with no flash like my 6D. I keep it loaded with lithium batteries as they last forever & don't fade.


----------



## Emil (Apr 24, 2014)

> A few have mentioned the 28/1.8. This may not be suitable for your needs; it is very much an 'art' lens ( pinching Sigmas title) and although razor sharp in the centre it really falls off mid frame. Even stopped down to f8 it can't match say the 24-105 mid frame. However if you want to shoot wide angle shallow depth of field, dreamy type shots it is excellent.



While I do agree with you, in my experience, the lack of corner sharpness is much less noticeable when using the 28mm f1.8 with a APS-C sensor.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 24, 2014)

Emil said:


> > A few have mentioned the 28/1.8. This may not be suitable for your needs; it is very much an 'art' lens ( pinching Sigmas title) and although razor sharp in the centre it really falls off mid frame. Even stopped down to f8 it can't match say the 24-105 mid frame. However if you want to shoot wide angle shallow depth of field, dreamy type shots it is excellent.
> 
> 
> 
> While I do agree with you, in my experience, the lack of corner sharpness is much less noticeable when using the 28mm f1.8 with a APS-C sensor.



I agree, it is less noticeable on crop when stopped down a little, but it still does very much effect the edges of the frame, and when compared with lenses such as the 40 or 35IS there is no comparison. 

Actually on FF the 28/1.8 does actually recover at the edge of the frame to a much more reasonable level which is quite weird. 

I think the 28/1.8 is a great lens to have for specialist, 'creative' types of photography, and is totally misunderstood by the reviewers who do a very good job of making sure it goes nice 'n cheap on the used market  

So as with lenses such as the 70-300 DO the moral of the story is don't buy a new one !


----------



## bereninga (Apr 24, 2014)

I also have the shorty 40 and have contemplated getting a 35mm, but have yet to really pull the trigger. I really do appreciate the size of the pancake lens and am pretty impressed w/ the IQ of something I got for less than $100 (refurbished sale). I think for APS-C, I would actually recommend the 24mm f/2.8 IS for indoors because of the wider angle. It's a great lens that gets the equiv of nearly 35mm focal length of FF. It was impressively sharp on my t3i.

But for FF, the 40mm on a 6D is pretty spectacular.


----------



## Ripley (Apr 25, 2014)

Check out the 35mm f2 IS versus the 40mm at f2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=824&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

And the 35mm f2 IS versus the 24-70mm II at f2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=824&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

As Juan Pablo would say... "I'm liking this!" ;D


----------

