# A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 23, 2014)

```
<div style="float: right; margin:0 0 76px 0px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=17099">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’ve been told to get the maple syrup ready, as a new 24mm pancake lens will arrive with the EOS 7D Mark II. No aperture was given, though f/2.8 would be assumed.</p>
<p>The same source also said a wide angle zoom was coming. This may be the previously mentioned 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. The third mentioned lens was a standard zoom, though no focal length was given for this. Perhaps this could be a non-L full frame zoom?</p>
<p>What isn’t getting mentioned anymore is the thorn-in-my-side Canon EF 100-400 replacement.</p>
<p>The same source also said that the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-ef-11-24-f2-8l-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">previously mentioned EF 11-24 f/2.8L</a> hasn’t been spoken about in their circles, so it could be a post Photokina thing or nothing at all.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## rs (Aug 23, 2014)

The 44mm flange distance makes a non retrofocus (ie pancake) 24mm EF or EF-S lens unlikely.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 23, 2014)

What about replacemnt of Ef 50mm macro or Ef 180mm macro? I dont care much about these pancake lenses. Although that 15-85mm Stm will be good for some video work on 70D.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

rs said:


> The 44mm flange distance makes a non retrofocus (ie pancake) 24mm EF or EF-S lens unlikely.



Really? 'Pancake' does not have to preclude 'retrofocus'.












http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih8vxb7z.html


----------



## LuCoOc (Aug 23, 2014)

I'd be interested in an EF-s version of the 22mm pancake. And by the way... I'd also take a 100-400 II.

I hope they don't improve the optics on the new 15-85. I want to keep mine :


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

LuCoOc said:


> I hope they don't improve the optics on the new 15-85. I want to keep mine :



Be careful what you wish for


----------



## Omni Images (Aug 23, 2014)

The thorn in my side is a new version of the 400 5.6L. The oldest lens in the line up now yet to be re-worked
IS plus a closer min focus.
Thank you please Canon


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> The thorn in my side is a new version of the 400 5.6L. The oldest lens in the line up now yet to be re-worked
> IS plus a closer min focus.
> Thank you please Canon



I might be interested in that lens, also. But it would have to compete with a new 100-400L.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

I wanted a 100-400L replacement in 2005!


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> The thorn in my side is a new version of the 400 5.6L. The oldest lens in the line up now yet to be re-worked
> IS plus a closer min focus.
> Thank you please Canon



In my view, there's no need if the do they 100-400L II properly.


----------



## Omni Images (Aug 23, 2014)

The beauty of the 400 prime over the zoom is size/weight and image quality, as well as it would be cheaper.
Though I am tossing up the new 100-400 over the old 400 5.6 .. if they don;t make one soon, I'll begrudgingly have to buy the new 100-400 ... wouldn't as it stands now buy the old 100-400 over the old 400 5.6.
Though if I had the money ...... I would buy a 400 2.8 in a heart beat .... BUT .. for hand holding and walking around the bush etc .. the 5.6 would still be easier.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> The beauty of the 400 prime over the zoom is size/weight and image quality, as well as it would be cheaper.



A new 100-400L would very likely improve over the old one in size, weight, and image quality, and improve for Canon in cost. ;D


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 23, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> as well as it would be cheaper.



That could be a problem: The 400 prime would have to go against the 100-400 in the same bracket, and the 200-400/4 (or 400/2.8) for the high end customer. Which means a limited customer base to spread development costs around, keeping the unit price higher then that of the current model. Plus the mandatory adjustments of course.


As for wide angle zoom and 15-85, wouldn't that be the standard zoom? It has a quite narrow FOV at its long end after all.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Omni Images said:
> 
> 
> > The beauty of the 400 prime over the zoom is size/weight and image quality, as well as it would be cheaper.
> ...



As in 'improve' you mean 'more' I think? I also think a new 100-400 will be bigger and heavier especially if it's twist zoom.


----------



## ecka (Aug 23, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > The 44mm flange distance makes a non retrofocus (ie pancake) 24mm EF or EF-S lens unlikely.
> ...



Well, proportionally, FD 50mm f/0.95 is a pancake too


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Omni Images said:
> ...



All the newer teles have gotten lighter. I expect the same.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 23, 2014)

Yay, more pancakes! I'd love to have another.


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 23, 2014)

I would probably get a 24 pancake if it were to be priced similarly to the 40. The 40 is good, but doesn't get much use because I use the 50 so much. It was so cheap, I just couldn't pass it up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Yay, more pancakes! I'd love to have another.



They come in stacks, right?


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 23, 2014)

I wonder what the limits of a "pancake"'lens are. Could they make a 14mm or 85mm pancake?


----------



## Groundhog (Aug 23, 2014)

captainkanji said:


> I wonder what the limits of a "pancake"'lens are. Could they make a 14mm or 85mm pancake?



Since Pentax can make a 70mm f2.4 Pancake and a really small 15mm f4.0 for APS-C, I think it is not completely impossible but the Limiteds are a bit pricy unlike the EF40.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2014)

I would love to have 20mm pancake on FF


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 23, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I would love to have 20mm pancake on FF



and an 85 (even a 70 will do). Just imagine a 20/40/85 pancake combo.... It'll be awesome with my 6D.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 23, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I would love to have 20mm pancake on FF



+1. A good 20mm f/2 prime would be fantastic


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 23, 2014)

I'll tell you what.

An updated version of the 400 5.6 would have to be truly fantastic because my copy is awesome.

so far this round of rumors lately has for me been a roller coaster. I have wanted to see some rumors that fire me up, but nothing yet. Would love to see something firm about 1DX II, some revolutionary new sensors (still not sure what we will see yet given the back and forth speculation), and would love to see a 12- 24L. Just me.

sek



mrsfotografie said:


> Omni Images said:
> 
> 
> > The thorn in my side is a new version of the 400 5.6L. The oldest lens in the line up now yet to be re-worked
> ...


----------



## drs (Aug 23, 2014)

What ever is on par with the 40mm -- I will buy. Period. ) I hope it will not only be a rumor.


----------



## Botts (Aug 23, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve been told to get the maple syrup ready, as a new 24mm pancake lens will arrive with the EOS 7D Mark II. No aperture was given, though f/2.8 would be assumed.



Coming with the 7D Mark II somewhat worries me that this may be an EF-S pancake. I'd buy it in an instant if it was an EF pancake!

If it matches the 40mm for quality it would be fantastic! It might even boot the Sigma 35A off my 6D for primary use.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 23, 2014)

rs said:


> The 44mm flange distance makes a non retrofocus (ie pancake) 24mm EF or EF-S lens unlikely.



Well, if it is EF-S, they could make the elements extend way back past the flange like they do on the 10–22. I doubt that will give then an extra 16mm, though.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2014)

Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.

A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm. 

Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Yay, more pancakes! I'd love to have another.



+1. 

FF users have had the 40 pancake and EOS-M users have had the 35mm FF equiv pancake for a while now. But _crop_ SLR users were SOL for an autofocusing pancake in a standard / wide FL (64mm equiv with the 40 on a crop is way too long for a walkaround lens for me). So an EF 24mm pancake would never leave my 2nd body, which is an old T1i. That would be my 'pocket' small camera setup.

Now what would get me _really_ excited would be to see a *USM* pancake. That would be gold. On my 5D3, too often I choose my ancient 50 F/1.4 over the 40mm pancake -- but for focusing speed reasons, not for max aperture reasons. Even the old hunty AF of that 50 prime is faster to target than the STM nonsense on the current pancake.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I would love to have 20mm pancake on FF



I think we'd like a 20mm prime _of any sort_ in FF. Canon hasn't made a new once since 1992.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
> 
> A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.
> 
> Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?



Size size size. It makes your rig so small you don't mind leaving the bag behind and just slinging your camera around your neck all day. Or it's such a small item that it's a no brainer to throw it in your bag as another FL option.

There's also a side argument (that some would refute) that the smaller your entire rig is, the more likely you'll bring it at all to take pictures.

But it will never 'compete' head to head at a feature level with larger lenses that offer IS, USM, weather-sealing, mechanical manual focusing, etc.

So I see pancakes as a nice option to reduce size when you don't need all those features -- leisure, walkaround, and street come to mind for lenses like these. 

- A


----------



## iMagic (Aug 23, 2014)

40mm pancake is great for IR stuff due i would think to non complex elements
. Hoping for an EF 24mm pancake to match


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The 70-200 f/2.8 IS (II) increased both in size and weight...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=103&LensComp=687&Units=M


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

Groundhog said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what the limits of a "pancake"'lens are. Could they make a 14mm or 85mm pancake?
> ...



Wait till they include diffractive optics into the mix


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?



Many people bought the 40 mm just because it was 'cool' and then lost it somewhere between the padding of their camera bags and never realized it went missing :


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to have 20mm pancake on FF
> ...



True, I went for the Sigma, which for all the bad press still is a great and fun lens to have in my kit.


----------



## Lihto (Aug 23, 2014)

I just thought about 20mm pancake the other day  hope this rumor is true.. it would be great for stedicam rig 5d mark 3+20mm pancake


----------



## cid (Aug 23, 2014)

this thread brought me to finding these two lenses












especially the 28mm pancake looks so sweet and I bet it exactly fit my travel bag ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2014)

cid said:


> this thread brought me to finding these two lenses
> 
> especially the 28mm pancake looks so sweet and I bet it exactly fit my travel bag ;D



You do realize these are MF (with confirmation) only?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Size size size. It makes your rig so small you don't mind leaving the bag behind and just slinging your camera around your neck all day.



I leave my 70-200/2.8 "around my neck" all day, no problem. It's all about placement (shoulder, not neck), and strap (Optech, not Canon).


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Size size size. It makes your rig so small you don't mind leaving the bag behind and just slinging your camera around your neck all day.
> ...



^^ This a dozen times. I already throw my 28 1.8 in a bag without thinking about it... compared to a 70-200 2.8, which I'm totally comfortable with, any of those USM consumer primes (28, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 gets a tad long with hood, but still not bad) are really pretty portable...


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 24, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?
> ...



Funny idea! Just checked if my copy of the 40mm is in the lens drawer where it has to be ... it was there so I haven't lost it in the padding of my back packs 

But a real advantage is that at least an APS-C body with that lens fits in a lens compartment so it has solved the problem of carrying two bodies in a not too large photo back pack.

I tend to use 150mm equiv as MY standard lens. The 64mm equiv of this lens on APS-C is a moderate wide angel for ME. Two bodies with 100mm Macro and 40mm pan cake are a good combo for ME.

About a 24mm pan cake: I don't believe that it is possible to produce one at f/2.8 for full frame. Might be an EF-S - so not too interesting for me. I own the old EF 2.8/24mm and this one is at least very light and on the compact side.


----------



## ecka (Aug 24, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



A reasonably priced ($200-$300) *EF* 20mm STM pancake would be nice.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 24, 2014)

its a shame its 24mm a 20mm or 21mm would have been better... and partnered the 40mm better

but that said 24mm will give 38mm on apsc so its kind of like a aps-c version of the 40 on full frame


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 24, 2014)

Groundhog said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what the limits of a "pancake"'lens are. Could they make a 14mm or 85mm pancake?
> ...



I believe the pentax pancake lenses don't have AF motors built in to the lenses. They are screw drive from the camera. How much space does an AF motor take up?

I have no idea.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 24, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to have 20mm pancake on FF
> ...



yeah a nice 20-21mm prime would be sweet - 21mm IS USM

pancakes at with canon's registration distance at 20mm? would have alot of compromises.

the Voigtländer 20mm 3.5 skopar is a good example. vignettes like hell, and blows the snot out at the corners. it makes the 17-40 look good in the corners.

Not sure i would like that versus just having a regular 21mm as sharp as the other current 24,28,35 IS USM lenses - especially for under 1k.

unless this is an EF-S lens and if so, why 24mm? the same as 40mm on full frame perhaps?

for EF-S .. a more likely and needed lens would be a 30mm 1.8 EF-S IS STM (IMO - but that's what everyone in the EF-S world usually complains about not having)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 24, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


----------



## cid (Aug 24, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > this thread brought me to finding these two lenses
> ...



yes I do, but I think MF should be fine for travel landscape


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 24, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> What isn’t getting mentioned anymore is the thorn-in-my-side Canon EF 100-400 replacement.


*lol* How annoying if the pink unicorn would stay a legend...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 24, 2014)

cid said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > cid said:
> ...



For that, these primes are excellent. I shot this panorama with the Voightlander 40mm at f/5.6 (7 frames combined). Mind, I sold the 40 mm after a year or two because I found I wasn't using it much, and for a walkaround the MF was inconvenient, and the 40mm focal length uninspiring.


----------



## tapanit (Aug 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
> 
> A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body [...]


The size is important for transportation, not for use. I have the 40mm as well as Voigtländer 20mm, and use them when I need to travel light - as in, hiking in the wilderness with already overweight backpack or struggling with airline carry-on restrictions.

If the rumored 24mm pancake becomes reality and is good enough I'll probably get it and start carrying it instead of the Voigtländer, even though I'd sorely miss the 4mm. A *good* 20mm EF pancake I'd pay serious money for.

I'd also love a bit longer pancake, say 70-100mm, especially a close-focusing one so it'd double as a portable macro.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 24, 2014)

tapanit said:


> ...70-100mm, especially a close-focusing one so it'd double as a portable macro.



I know you didn't mean it that way, but that reminded me of the 'pancake zoom'.

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2014a/nr140129zuikoede.jsp

http://store.sony.com/e-pz-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-oss-e-mount-power-zoom-lens-zid27-SELP1650/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-NEX-Lenses


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
> 
> A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.
> 
> Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?



They are cheap to make being a simple, almost unmodified planar design, and were originally popular as a budget prime lens. The Nikkor 50 f2 was a pancake design but set deep into a 50 f1.4 barrel so it didn't look like one, and was sold as a budget option. Pentax introduced the 40mm f2.8 pancake in 1976 to go with its new miniature MX & ME, again a budget option but also very small to complement the small size of the two new cameras. One of the drawbacks of the design is that they are relatively slow, but they are very good across the frame. 

So the advantages are small, cheap but high quality. The disadvantage is that they are relatively slow. 

How does a 24mm pancake stack up against a very fine 24 f2.8 IS in the line up ? The pancake will have to be cheaper and won't have IS. It may also be slower than 2.8. 

This lens would go very well with the SL1, ( 24mm makes more sense than 40 on crop) and indeed my FF cameras because personally speaking I disagree with those that say a 70-200 round your neck all day is no problem. The 40mm pancake on say a 6D radically alters both the weight and balance of the camera, making it very little different to carrying a compact of some sort; you just don't know it's there. It is also very discrete. I find the 40 a great lens for 'walk about', landscape, Panoramics etc. I don't find it that useful for 'events' such as a wedding. 

If Canon introduced a high quality, small cheap 24/28 pancake with metal mount I'll buy one.


----------



## cid (Aug 24, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



very lovely panorama

recently I tried some travel photography with my 24-70 and 70-200 in the bag, I find 70-200 being quite heavy, but it's very useful FL for me...
24-70 is another story, it's superb lens, but I feel like it's quite heavy and I mostly use it on 24mm while travelling, so I'll buy 16-35 f/4 or something even wider (maybe 15mm Zeiss) or/and even better with some nice pancake


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 24, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Canon 30mm F1.8 IS STM ... It would be a dream lens for me. : :-*


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 24, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
> ...



+1! A 24mm and/or 40mm pancake would make a perfect compliment to a 70-200mm for my use anyway. I'd love to take just a 24mm pancake and lightweight 50mm or 85mm for a compact, lightweight, and somewhat lowlight setup too. I already enjoy carrying a 6D with 40mm around for family trips, would be nice to have more options.


----------



## ecka (Aug 24, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Not much different from EF 35/2 IS USM, is it?


----------



## tat3406 (Aug 24, 2014)

if same price and size with 40mm but wider, I will preorder one.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 24, 2014)

Why would it be f/2.8? The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either. A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.


----------



## tat3406 (Aug 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Why would it be f/2.8? The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either. A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.



24mm & 28mm f2.8 IS is very good small prime, but the price is around 4 times to 40mm pancake.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 25, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Why would it be f/2.8? The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either. A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.
> ...


Which is why I don't think it'll be f/2.8 or be as good as the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS primes if it's priced anywhere near the 40mm pancake. And why launch it with the 7DII, unless it is an EF-S lens, but does that make sense when Canon has not shown much inclinination for EF-S primes?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 25, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Why would it be f/2.8? The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either. A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.
> ...



The non-L IS refresh lenses (24/28/35) and the pancakes are different animals. Similar sharpness and similar max aperture, but the non-L IS lenses get you some very nice things:


*Much faster focusing -- USM vs. STM is no contest*
*IS is lovely for low-light handheld work*
Higher build quality. The 24/28/35 lenses feel like the 100L macro for 'solidness', precision, lack of rattle or play with the rings, etc. The pancake is certainly nicer than the nifty fifty 50 F/1.8, but it's not as well put together as the 24/28/35 lenses. In short, there is much more to build quality than if the ring is metal -- I'd compare these very lenses to make that point.
Internal focusing -- does not change length while focusing. The pancake extends out depending on focus distance.
For two of the three FL (24 and 28), you get a 58mm filter ring, which is probably is the a common diameter for folks stepping up from their crop kit lenses. The pancake has a 52mm ring which is fairly uncommon for DSLR owners to have in their bag these days.
Full-time _mechanical_ manual focusing -- the pancake has focus by wire
Proper bayonet hoods are offered -- the pancake has a screw-in hood that some do not like.
Greater max magnification (0.23-0.24x vs. 0.18x)
Has a distance scale -- the pancake does not

In short, the non-L IS refresh lenses are (nearly) fully featured lenses with the bells and whistles photographers count on. The pancake is a stripped down photography tool that takes sharp pictures but can limit the photographer for the reasons listed above. 

I've also heard in some reviews that the pancake is specifically for more wide-open-end applications (where it is truly remarkable), and that the lens gets softer (I presume from diffraction) more quickly when you stop down past F/8, F/11 or so than a conventional lens might. Bryan Carnathan from TDP also spoke of a small focus shift with the pancake, but still gave it his highest 'star' rating, given the value.

The pancake is still a stellar value and takes remarkably sharp pictures, but understand that at that price, you _don't get everything_. Many features you may / may not care about will be missing. In full disclosure, I own the 40 pancake and the 28 F/2.8 IS and the 28 gets used easily 10x more for the reasons above. The 40 is relegated to ultralight walkaround detail when I may / may not need my camera. Glad to have it, but I rarely need it.

- A


----------



## preppyak (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.


I dont think they are intended to compete with the other primes...rather to serve a complementary purposed to larger kits.

For example, I have an 11-16mm, a 17-70mm, and a 55-250...all lenses I like and that aren't "heavy" per say. I had a 200mm f/2.8 as well at one point. I'd take them backpacking, I'd take them in my boat kayaking, etc. On longer trips, the extra 4-5lbs of those lenses adds up quickly. It weighs me down and takes energy away, making me less excited to do photography. It affects the performance of my boat and takes up a lot of space.

Now, make that just a 24mm and 60+mm pancake (especially combined with an SL1 or TXi camera), and suddenly my total kit weights about <2lbs, instead of say 7-8lbs. I can take it in a smaller dry box, which also means less weight. There's also physical limitations to those boxes...I might need a pancake to even fit it in a box that works for me.

Mostly, just compare a 60D w 35mm f/2 IS vs an SL1 with 40mm f/2.8. It's a BIG difference in size: http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.368,448.345,ha,t

And the tradeoffs are relatively small. No swivel screen, lower fps, less weather sealing, etc. But, for people that need portability, those tradeoffs are often much better than going mirrorless if you still do sports shooting.


----------



## mrzero (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
> 
> A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.
> 
> Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?



The appeal for a 20-24mm pancake on crop is definitely there. Before I went full frame, my 20mm USM was basically permanently attached to my rebel. The biggest drawback to me at the time was that it wasn't wide enough. I would've preferred 16 or 18mm, with the 2.8, but I certainly couldn't have afforded the 16-35 2.8 L II at the time. 

A ~24mm pancake will definitely not have (or need) IS. I would think it would be EF-S and also slower than 2.8 as well, for further differentiation from the new non-L IS prime. But who knows?

As for me, I'm actually thinking about grabbing the new 10-18 and just modding the rear mount to fit the full frame.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 25, 2014)

preppyak said:


> Mostly, just compare a 60D w 35mm f/2 IS vs an SL1 with 40mm f/2.8. It's a BIG difference in size: http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.368,448.345,ha,t



Thanks, I bookmarked that site, very handy!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 25, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Mostly, just compare a 60D w 35mm f/2 IS vs an SL1 with 40mm f/2.8. It's a BIG difference in size: http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.368,448.345,ha,t
> ...



Yeah, I've used that site a few times. It makes we want mirrorless less and it makes me want smaller lenses more. 

- A


----------



## brad-man (Aug 25, 2014)

I guess I'm the only one hoping for an EF-M pancake. I certainly don't expect it, I just like the idea of having another pocketable lens for my little friend.


----------



## Mr Bean (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.
> 
> A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.
> 
> Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?


For me, it's a great landscape lens. Sharp at 5.6 and great contrast and colour. On a 5D3 with grip, it looks a bit odd, but, it takes great images. That's all I care about 

Very handy as a street lens. Wandering around NY with the 5D3 stripped down (grip removed), it looked less attention seeking 

The 24mm pancake I don't have a need for. But, I might get one if its cheap and compact.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 26, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > preppyak said:
> ...



Actually, I don't like my lenses to become too short (pancakes) because it deducts from good handling. A lens that has a little more length to it allows me to stabilize my camera with my left hand. This is one reason why I sold my 40mm Voightlander. The minimum size of lens I like to use on my 5D's is the 35mm f/2 and 50 mm f/1.8 MkI.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 26, 2014)

brad-man said:


> I guess I'm the only one hoping for an EF-M pancake. I certainly don't expect it, I just like the idea of having another pocketable lens for my little friend.



id be super keen for a EF-M 35 f2 pancake


----------



## Cory (Aug 26, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> id be super keen for a EF-M 35 f2 pancake



50


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 26, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm the only one hoping for an EF-M pancake. I certainly don't expect it, I just like the idea of having another pocketable lens for my little friend.
> ...



Me too - just preferring a little longer focal length (like Cory) and a good (=small) minimum focus distance!

I like to equip my EOS M with the shorty fourty but it is no longer compact with the EF->EF-M adaptor.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 26, 2014)

If it's similar in quality and price to the 40, I'd love one. The 40 is a sweet little lens. Small and subtle and great for landscapes and walking around. I most recently used it as a museum lens at the Royal Ontario Museum. Fast enough to give me a 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed and I was able to get clear shots at those speeds even without IS.


----------



## ajperk (Aug 26, 2014)

I am obviously a bit late to the conversation, but I am very excited for more pancake lenses! I love the 40mm, carry it around in my camera bag all the time and throw it on the camera for a light, discreet walk-around setup. If it's priced about the same as the 40mm, then I'll probably be pre-ordering it.


----------



## Kmccarthy (Aug 27, 2014)

I think a 24mm pancake would be a perfect walk around lens for a rebel. An SL1 with a 24mm pancake would be a mirrorless killer.


----------



## Botts (Aug 27, 2014)

Kmccarthy said:


> I think a 24mm pancake would be a perfect walk around lens for a rebel. An SL1 with a 24mm pancake would be a mirrorless killer.



My 6D is a mirrorless killer with the 40STM! Mirrorless killer as long as we aren't including the A7 series! I'd still take my 6D over the A7/A7r, but the A7s could easily earn a spot in my camera bag for night work.

Here's a size comparison.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2014)

Botts said:


> Kmccarthy said:
> 
> 
> > I think a 24mm pancake would be a perfect walk around lens for a rebel. An SL1 with a 24mm pancake would be a mirrorless killer.
> ...



For some reason, that link artificially lined up the A7 incorrectly. I've taken the liberty of lining up all the cameras to the LCD 'face' and skipped any VF / eyecup differences. See attached.

Mirrorless FF -- with standard FL lenses -- has the opportunity to have a quite thin and tiny setup. But pancakes on SLRs (in the FL they are offered) almost level the playing field if small size is your goal.

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 27, 2014)

Botts said:


> My 6D is a mirrorless killer with the 40STM! Mirrorless killer as long as we aren't including the A7 series!



Really?


----------



## Marauder (Aug 27, 2014)

I'd like to see them also come out with a 30mm f2.8 Pancake. Great "near 50mm" equivalent for crop frames. Would still expect it to be EF rather than EF-S--just have a slightly different utility on crop vs. full.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 27, 2014)

I really am not concerned with how a camera looks, but the A7 just makes the 6D look like 1990's aesthetic.


----------



## ecka (Aug 27, 2014)

Marauder said:


> I'd like to see them also come out with a 30mm f2.8 Pancake. Great "near 50mm" equivalent for crop frames. Would still expect it to be EF rather than EF-S--just have a slightly different utility on crop vs. full.



Yeap, nice 50/4.5 equivalent for crop frames . There is really not much of size or price reduction in APS-C realm.


----------



## ecka (Aug 27, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I really am not concerned with how a camera looks, but the A7 just makes the 6D look like 1990's aesthetic.



Really? Isn't the A7 looking more retro?... from seventies


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I really am not concerned with how a camera looks, but the A7 just makes the 6D look like 1990's aesthetic.



Agree, but have you tried _handling_ an A7? I'll take my 5D3's phenomenal grip/handling over that boxy little thing any day.

For me, it's a personal preference issue, but I actually wonder how handholdable in low light these mirrorless rigs really are. Throw technology out for a second -- forget about high ISO performance and IS technology -- but I'd love to see a 'keeper rate' study where a common lens (let's say a Sigma art lens) used on a mirrorless rig and an SLR with a solid, chunky grip is used to take shots at 1/60 second, then 1/30, then 1/15, then 1/8, etc. 

I'm not being a mirrorless naysayer here (I admit that mirrorless is in all of our futures _eventually_), I'm sincerely curious from a scientific/ergonomic perspective. How important is grip size to holding the camera steady? Does a FF grip deliver a stop of 'grip IS' or is it just a comfort and muscle strain nice-to-have?

- A


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 28, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Agree, but have you tried _handling_ an A7?



Add the battery grip and it improves to "somewhat awkward".


----------



## Marauder (Aug 28, 2014)

ecka said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I really am not concerned with how a camera looks, but the A7 just makes the 6D look like 1990's aesthetic.
> ...



Yup! 8)


----------



## DRR (Aug 28, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I really am not concerned with how a camera looks, but the A7 just makes the 6D look like 1990's aesthetic.
> ...



I've wondered this too - from my personal experience, the strength of mirrorless (smaller size, simpler design) is also its weakness. Cameras continue to get smaller and smaller (have you seen the Pentax Q??) and yet, the size of the human hand has not changed in hundreds of years. 

For me, mirrorless (my EOS-M) is fine for snapshots and for times that I want a little more control than my phone camera, but had not thought ahead to bring my DSLR. (My EOS-M is almost always with me). I personally have not handled a Sony a7 but it looks like that's the minimum size I'd need in order to consider a mirrorless full time. I don't know how comfortable I'd be with its dial placement but it looks awkward. Manufacturers have tried things like putting controls onto the touch screen, but that's similarly awkward. With my SLR I can make every adjustment I need to and not take my eye off the viewfinder. For mirrorless to seriously compete with DSLRs it needs to have this level of control. Smaller, lighter, thinner, etc are not inherently good things, they come with tradeoffs.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 28, 2014)

DRR said:


> I've wondered this too - from my personal experience, the strength of mirrorless (smaller size, simpler design) is also its weakness. Cameras continue to get smaller and smaller (have you seen the Pentax Q??) and yet, the size of the human hand has not changed in hundreds of years.
> 
> For me, mirrorless (my EOS-M) is fine for snapshots and for times that I want a little more control than my phone camera, but had not thought ahead to bring my DSLR. (My EOS-M is almost always with me). I personally have not handled a Sony a7 but it looks like that's the minimum size I'd need in order to consider a mirrorless full time. I don't know how comfortable I'd be with its dial placement but it looks awkward. Manufacturers have tried things like putting controls onto the touch screen, but that's similarly awkward. With my SLR I can make every adjustment I need to and not take my eye off the viewfinder. For mirrorless to seriously compete with DSLRs it needs to have this level of control. Smaller, lighter, thinner, etc are not inherently good things, they come with tradeoffs.



I've taken some sample shots with an A7 in a Sony store, and the grip isn't terrible. I'd liken holding it and shooting with it to a Rebel-sized crop camera, which is not bad at all. I did not like the knob and dial placements, but who ever does on a first use? Overall, I found the experience to be cramped but functional.

But the bottom line is that I generally shoot with_ lenses that are not tiny_, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, etc. So the size sell is lost a bit on me, see here: http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.294,487.392,ha,t

Now if I was shooting street or was some travel photojournalist, I'd slap a single prime on his camera and go. That's where these mirrorless rigs (including rangefinders) would be terrific. 

- A


----------



## adhocphotographer (Aug 29, 2014)

I so hope this is true!!!!


----------



## lw (Aug 29, 2014)

According to Digicam https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2014%2F08%2Fef-s24mm-f28-stmef24-105mm-f35.html&edit-text=, it is an EF-S not EF lens



> 24mm F2.8 is a lens that rumor is flowing well recently, but it seems to be EF-S lens instead of EF apparently. The rumor, it is said that this lens become a pancake, but it is where you want to pay attention how to be degree smaller and lighter.



(via CW)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2014)

lw said:


> According to Digicam https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2014%2F08%2Fef-s24mm-f28-stmef24-105mm-f35.html&edit-text=, it is an EF-S not EF lens
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good link, thank you!

I must say that 24mm for crop is odd. 24mm is a common FF focal length, but not a common Canon crop focal length. An EF-S _22mm_ (like with the EF-M) version would give a 35.2mm focal length that would make more sense. 

But an EF-S offering makes sense as this is the only mount that doesn't have a pancake option right now. It's a pity it won't be EF, though, as I am a 5D3 shooter and would love a wide pancake option with autofocusing.

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> lw said:
> 
> 
> > According to Digicam https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2014%2F08%2Fef-s24mm-f28-stmef24-105mm-f35.html&edit-text=, it is an EF-S not EF lens
> ...



24*1.6=38.4 mm. This is very near 40mm, which is a nice standard focal length for a 'standard' prime. Case in point:


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> 24*1.6=38.4 mm. This is very near 40mm, which is a nice standard focal length for a 'standard' prime. Case in point:



Agree, but then why did Canon choose a 22mm pancake for EOS-M? Anything from 35-50mm FF is fine with me, but Canon is frustratingly inconsistent on this. 

- A


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Aug 31, 2014)

I have the 40 stm and the voigtlander 20. Both are great. Shooting manual focus at 20mm on full-frame is totally easy. The only thing is you can't shoot quickly one-handed but so what. The voigt shoots beautifully. Two lenses at 345 grams total. Share a 52mm filter. It's great. Amazing how effective the distance scale becomes as well as the focus confirmation. The 16-35 is twice the weight of both put together and over twice the size. It's a hassle switching lenses but the prime shooting experience is also special.

Having used Pentax for 3 years previously, and having owned a handful of their pancake and small limiteds, I'm most satisfied with the 6d and a couple of small lenses. A 24mm pancake would be very compelling. I guarantee it will be stm if it exists. I just can't see it happening though. I'd bank on another m lens with a new m camera that actually is worth buying. Canon isn't going to give up the mirrorless game that quickly. But if they don't spit out a modern 50mm they'll frustrate a lot of people.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 31, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> I have the 40 stm and the voigtlander 20. Both are great. Shooting manual focus at 20mm on full-frame is totally easy. The only thing is you can't shoot quickly one-handed but so what. The voigt shoots beautifully. Two lenses at 345 grams total. Share a 52mm filter. It's great. Amazing how effective the distance scale becomes as well as the focus confirmation. The 16-35 is twice the weight of both put together and over twice the size. It's a hassle switching lenses but the prime shooting experience is also special.
> 
> Having used Pentax for 3 years previously, and having owned a handful of their pancake and small limiteds, I'm most satisfied with the 6d and a couple of small lenses. A 24mm pancake would be very compelling. I guarantee it will be stm if it exists. I just can't see it happening though. I'd bank on another m lens with a new m camera that actually is worth buying. Canon isn't going to give up the mirrorless game that quickly. But if they don't spit out a modern 50mm they'll frustrate a lot of people.



i agree the voigt 20 and 40 are an awesome pair when travelling light
with the 20 set f8 hard stop infinity and everything from 2m to infinity is in focus anyway its a wicked point and shoot when used like this.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 31, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> with the 20 set f8 hard stop infinity and everything from 2m to infinity is in focus anyway its a wicked point and shoot when used like this.



I have a 12mm Samyang that I use on my Sony, and I've not quite figured out what is the 'ideal' setting for that lens. I use focus peaking but found that OOF areas with high contrast are still shown as being in focus. Wide angle MF can be really challenging, and I think I need more practice to build the necessary confidence.


----------

