# Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 22, 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/2012/05/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-pancake-coming-cr3/"></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/2012/05/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-pancake-coming-cr3/" 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/2012/05/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-pancake-coming-cr3/"></a></div>
<strong>It’s coming


</strong>We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/" target="_blank">reported this a long time ago</a>, it’s good to hear about it again. There will be an inexpensive “pancake” lens coming to the Canon lineup.  It will be  an EF 40mm f/2.8, non L lens. How much? I’m told less than $300 USD.</p>
<p>For those that don’t know, a pancake lens is a very thin, small and light lens. It could be fun mounted to the front of a 5D3 or a smaller Rebel.</p>
<p>Expect it to be announced in June with the T4i and a new EF-S 18-135 IS II.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## TheGoondocks (May 22, 2012)

I don't think the 40mm pancake is meant for the dSLR. I think its going to be for the soon to be announced Mirrorless camera. What is the point of strapping a pancake lens to a dSLR? That makes as much sense as strapping a 70-200 f/2.8 IS to a small mirrorless camera. 

If that is the case, it would stand to reason that the sensor in the mirrorless will either be full framed or perhaps APS-H (1.3x) since that would be fairly close to a 50mm "standard" focal length.


----------



## preppyak (May 22, 2012)

TheGoondocks said:


> If that is the case, it would stand to reason that the sensor in the mirrorless will either be full framed or perhaps APS-H (1.3x) since that would be fairly close to a 50mm "standard" focal length.


I agree with you its odd on a DSLR, especially since the 50mm f/1.8 isn't exactly large (1.5" basically). 

But if it means the mirror less is EF mount, then it makes it interesting. Though I'd probably rather it had the ability to use FD lenses in addition to EF with an adapter


----------



## unfocused (May 22, 2012)

Odd size. Odd price. Odd speed. I don't see much demand for a pancake 40mm f2.8 on a DSLR, when you can get a "pancake" 50mm f1.8 for one third the price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2012)

I'm not interested, unless it comes with a LOT more syrup...and a cherry on top.


----------



## DB (May 22, 2012)

Does this mean that the 35mm f/2 is destined for the 'Discontinued List', as it is at an almost identical price point and is so close in focal length, plus considered very soft (easier to make f2.8 a lot sharper)?


----------



## drjlo (May 22, 2012)

DB said:


> Does this mean that the 35mm f/2 is destined for the 'Discontinued List', as it is at an almost identical price point and is so close in focal length, plus considered very soft (easier to make f2.8 a lot sharper)?



Who says 35 f/2 is "very soft"? My copy certainly isn't, and it, along with 50 f/1.8, is what saves the masses from also-ran zoom lenses with entry-level dslr bodies.


----------



## crasher8 (May 22, 2012)

64mm FL on a 1.6…..Hmmmm, lemme check the common FL's used on my 24-70. Not sure if I'd prime at that length so much.


----------



## BRNexus6 (May 22, 2012)

Why a 40mm lens? Those of us that use crop sensor cameras could really use an inexpensive 30mm 1.8 standard lens. I swear a bunch of Monkeys are running Canon these days.


----------



## RC (May 22, 2012)

TheGoondocks said:


> I don't think the 40mm pancake is meant for the dSLR. I think its going to be for the soon to be announced Mirrorless camera. What is the point of strapping a pancake lens to a dSLR? That makes as much sense as strapping a 70-200 f/2.8 IS to a small mirrorless camera.
> 
> If that is the case, it would stand to reason that the sensor in the mirrorless will either be full framed or perhaps APS-H (1.3x) since that would be fairly close to a 50mm "standard" focal length.


Yip


----------



## mws (May 22, 2012)

Odd focal length. My only guess is APS-H, puts it at around 50mm. I seem to remember Canon saying they were done with the H sensor though. 

I'm also curious about the speed. Maybe someone who knows more about lens design could comment on it. Is it harder to make a useable pancake with speeds greater then 2.8? I've been reading about micro 4/3rds lately and they all seem to complain about slow prime pancakes. 

Either way it will be curious to see what happens with this. I was so close to getting a Pen E-P2 with a 17mm for a compact street shooter, but decided to wait and see what Canon does here instead.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 22, 2012)

Historically, 40mm is a popular size for a pancake lens. And its actually a handy focal length. Although, f/2.8 throws me - f/2 would be more appealing.


----------



## preppyak (May 22, 2012)

mws said:


> I'm also curious about the speed. Maybe someone who knows more about lens design could comment on it. Is it harder to make a useable pancake with speeds greater then 2.8? I've been reading about micro 4/3rds lately and they all seem to complain about slow prime pancakes.


Well, the point of a pancake lens is to be as small as possible. If you look at Canon lens design (for example, the 35mm lenses), the lower the aperture, the wider the diameter and the more elements. The 35mm f/2 has 7 elements in 5 groups, the 35mm f/1.4 has 11 elements in 9 groups. It's twice the length as a result...which would destroy the pancake design. Seems to go away with the longer focal lengths to a point. Also, Canon doesn't offer any cheap wide angles under f/2.8 anymore.

The other factor is that mirrorless is working with a smaller sensor, so they need even faster primes to begin with, by about 2/3rd's a stop to APS-C. So they'd have to pump out f/1.4 primes to match something like the 50mm f/1,8


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2012)

This is dumb. F/2 or faster for primes otherwise, WHATs THE POINT?! Just use good zooms.

I think the canon mirrorless will suprise us with a EF mount system with 1.3X crop factor. It will be not a low end entry level, but a mid-range camera like the fuji X-pro 1. This would make sense for them not to cut into the rebel sales or the G1X sales.

Fingers crossed that its a optical rangefinder style camera... Or has a VERY VERY good LED viewfinder. ;D


----------



## sjp010 (May 22, 2012)

I'm interested in this one, honestly. As long as it's very sharp at f/2.8 and has ring USM. I have 50mm and 28mm primes and often wish I had something wider than 50 and longer than 28 to walk around with.

$300 sounds right for a f/2.8 prime, if the IQ is there. $800 does not, unless it can do the laundry too.


----------



## Zlatko (May 22, 2012)

I would love to have a 40/2.8 pancake lens, as long as the AF is the quiet USM type. A pancake lens is the perfect way to "shrink" a large DSLR like the 5D3 and make it more portable for trips and family photos. This way you can carry a very high quality DSLR with a very useful focal length, but without the size & weight of a big lens. A new 35/2 would be fantastic too as the old one has the noisy non-USM autofocus.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 22, 2012)

mws said:


> Odd focal length. My only guess is APS-H, puts it at around 50mm. I seem to remember Canon saying they were done with the H sensor though.
> 
> I'm also curious about the speed. Maybe someone who knows more about lens design could comment on it. Is it harder to make a useable pancake with speeds greater then 2.8? I've been reading about micro 4/3rds lately and they all seem to complain about slow prime pancakes.
> 
> Either way it will be curious to see what happens with this. I was so close to getting a Pen E-P2 with a 17mm for a compact street shooter, but decided to wait and see what Canon does here instead.



i'm hoping it heralds anew APS-H camera


----------



## Zlatko (May 22, 2012)

mws said:


> Odd focal length. My only guess is APS-H, puts it at around 50mm. I seem to remember Canon saying they were done with the H sensor though.
> 
> I'm also curious about the speed. Maybe someone who knows more about lens design could comment on it. Is it harder to make a useable pancake with speeds greater then 2.8?


On a full frame camera, 40mm is closer to a true normal lens than a 50mm. A true normal would be 43mm. A 35mm is a bit on the wide side of normal, and a 50mm is a bit on the telephoto side of normal. The point of a pancake lens is its smallness. It should be very, very small. Pentax has an amazingly small pancake lens. A faster aperture would make it bigger and likely compromise the whole "pancake" aspect of it. Canon already offers a bunch of excellent (but big) fast primes, so a pancake is for when you want to carry something much lighter and don't need the speed. That said, I would still love to see an updated 35mm f/2 with USM, and perhaps a high quality 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 with USM.


----------



## coldcaption (May 22, 2012)

Good; Canon needs smaller gear! I started shooting film a few months ago and find that my Minolta X700 is far superior to my 30D and 50mm f/1.4 for the actual purpose of taking pictures. It's not in my way when I'm not shooting and it barely is when I am. Size isn't the only reason I like it more (ask me about focusing!), but it's a big reason. What's the use in having awesome gear if it's too cumbersome to facilitate shooting?


----------



## clarkia (May 22, 2012)

perfect pocket lens if you don't want to carry around a zoom. i agree, a 2.0 would be nice but it would no longer be pancake-ish in design. those who say, "why wouldn't you just carry a 2.8 zoom instead" are missing the point - small, less intrusive (to the subject), lightweight and a good focal length. we'll see how it compares to the voightlander. could be a great street photo lens. carry this and an 85mm 1.8 for a nice street package.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This is dumb. F/2 or faster for primes otherwise, WHATs THE POINT?! Just use good zooms.



Because it makes it really cheap. Although, they did manage to make the 50mm an f/1.8. But, I'm not sure it's considered a pancake.


----------



## nikkito (May 22, 2012)

Hmmmmm pancakes (read it with homer's voice)


;D


----------



## EchoLocation (May 22, 2012)

i don't understand this at all. Why do I need a 40mm 2.8 when I can already buy a 35mm 1.8 for 1/3rd the price(as someone said earlier.)
Pancake or no pancake, the 35 1.8 isn't exactly big, especially on a 5D. This lens makes zero sense to me unless a mirrorless camera is coming with it. And even so, 40mm is kind of an odd focal length. I feel like anything from 24 to 35 would be more useful.


----------



## Nassen0f (May 22, 2012)

Sounds like a nice walkaround lens realy, Specialy for that price.

Not all of us has the money for big bad zooms


----------



## BillyBean (May 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This is dumb. F/2 or faster for primes otherwise, WHATs THE POINT?! Just use good zooms.
> 
> I think the canon mirrorless will suprise us with a EF mount system with 1.3X crop factor. It will be not a low end entry level, but a mid-range camera like the fuji X-pro 1. This would make sense for them not to cut into the rebel sales or the G1X sales.
> 
> Fingers crossed that its a optical rangefinder style camera... Or has a VERY VERY good LED viewfinder. ;D



I reckon you are right. Canon are not dumb. Greedy, maybe, but not dumb. This lens has only one point: *SIZE*. And that only makes sense on a tiny camera. So I'm thinking Leica M9 or Fuji X-Pro sort of size. Pancake makes a lot of sense on that, and with an EF mount (EF-S) could shift a lot of units. The f2.8 doesn't sound so stupid then.

Let's see.


----------



## maxxevv (May 22, 2012)

It will indeed be a jaw dropper if the mirrorless comes out as an APS-H ... ! 

Leica would have to be really worried if it has all the controls of a full-fledged DSLR and the form factor of a rangefinder ! 

I definitely would want one !!!! ;D


----------



## Stuart (May 22, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> I feel like anything from 24 to 35 would be more useful.


Agreed.
The Nifty Fifty is a no brainer purchase, and if there was an equivelent priced one in the range above. +1 more lens for me.

I like the mirrorless APS-H idea with the 40mm. But wow that would be an expensive sensor. Maybe they had some 1Dmk4s ones spare.

It seems like an age since Canon released any new affordable consumer lenses.


----------



## trulandphoto (May 22, 2012)

I'm excited. I'm going to put off selling my last 5D and pair it with one of these for street. Can't wait.


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 22, 2012)

40mm on a 2x crop would be 80mm... I'm not expecting the mirrorless to be anything more than APS-C, it is just as likely to be the same size as a 4/3rds sensor, EF-M ? (micro) in a way of beating Nikon on sensor size (Nikon 1), but not suffering a problem of having to build masses of new lenses, as it would be EF or EF-S comparable.

So, could we also expect a cheap 12mm and 24mm pancake too ?, giving 24mm and 48mm focal lengths ?


----------



## pwp (May 22, 2012)

As a photographer people are always asking me what sort of camera they should get. So the conversation continues with questions about their needs, wishes and budgets. The Canon S100 has the highest hit rate at the moment. Some people who have had fairly decent compacts but want the very small form factor with very good IQ. Think in terms of APS-C & pancake...

I've offered a solution to a few people that has cost a lot less than a Leica M9. It's a small Pentax DSLR with the 40mm pancake. What a winner! Or a small Olympus DSLR with the 25mm pancake. There is a definite market for this sort of ultra compact APS-C package. And with all the obvious benefits of a DSLR.

Paul Wright


----------



## sanj (May 22, 2012)

preppyak said:


> TheGoondocks said:
> 
> 
> > If that is the case, it would stand to reason that the sensor in the mirrorless will either be full framed or perhaps APS-H (1.3x) since that would be fairly close to a 50mm "standard" focal length.
> ...



Sounds like a good point!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 22, 2012)

I am very keen on the EF 40mm f2.8, if it's real. I love the aesthetic of a pancake lens, and they are usually very simple and high quality, not to mention, cheap.

I think a rebel plus a pancake would be a good pocket sized snapshot camera, street photography etc.

But I'm talking about a lens that isn't even official yet. That's just what I would like.


----------



## goodmane (May 22, 2012)

I wonder if this is in response to the 40mm by Panasonic?

Anyway its exactly what I want and I'll prob swap my 35mm f2 for it. 

As to everyone wondering why this makes sense, I don't want to buy another small camera with rubbish battery life and lower image quality, with small viewfinder. 

This allows somebody like me to leave the 24-70L at home for studio and still use the 5D for fun, without the extra weight. 

When they bring out a lighter full frame DSLR to go with it, I will bite, so long as its still as good as the old 5D and comes with video and a built-in flash. 

Its a masterstroke as far as I'm concerned and will make Canon a viable alternative for those considering aesthetics, viewfinders, and weight as well as quality, such as Leica and Fuji.


----------



## swannd (May 22, 2012)

Having just purchased a 5D3, this seems like a strange lens to release, or want. But put one on my old 400D, or any xxxD body, and I can see the attraction of a fairly small combination.

Overall though, it is most likely designed for a new camera.


----------



## Woody (May 22, 2012)

Pentax has a SMC-FA 43 mm f/1.9 pancake lens that works on full-frame cameras.

Why can't Canon offer a pancake lens with similar aperture? Sigh... They are really go down...


----------



## MacDarcy (May 22, 2012)

I kinda agree with alot of the comments here. Seems odd for a dslr...especially since the plastic fantastic 50f1.8 does the job faster & cheaper.

It's probably meant for the rumored mirror-less canon i would imagine.

But hey...i am not complaining. Always nice to hear Canon is adding to their prime lenses.


----------



## lipe (May 22, 2012)

seriously I love pancake!


----------



## mws (May 22, 2012)

Most likely designed for a new camera. I'd have to guess that 40mm f 2.8 gives a happy balance of focal length on any current camera body and what the cost will be.


----------



## AprilForever (May 22, 2012)

When I first read it, I read 400 2.8 Pancakes, as in pancaking as in flopping... Oh well...

But this looks interesting, though... f2 would be better, but still...


----------



## Zlatko (May 22, 2012)

goodmane said:


> As to everyone wondering why this makes sense, I don't want to buy another small camera with rubbish battery life and lower image quality, with small viewfinder.
> 
> This allows somebody like me to leave the 24-70L at home for studio and still use the 5D for fun, without the extra weight.
> ....
> Its a masterstroke as far as I'm concerned and will make Canon a viable alternative for those considering aesthetics, viewfinders, and weight as well as quality, such as Leica and Fuji.


I think you nailed it perfectly! A pancake lens turns your big camera into something of a small camera alternative. Not fully, but enough to be very compelling. And for some people, it means that when they want a smaller camera, they don't have to settle for the crummy viewfinder, autofocus, battery life and depth of field characteristics that small cameras often bring.


----------



## preppyak (May 22, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> That said, I would still love to see an updated 35mm f/2 with USM, and perhaps a high quality 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 with USM.


Well, the 50mm f/1.4 has USM, so that would fit your needs in regards to "high quality 50mm", and the price is within this realm (usually <$400). Aside from adding IS, Canon doesnt seem eager to update their non-L primes, so, I wouldn't expect too much. But, an EF mount mirrorless would mean they might start updating primes more, and that'd trickle down to the DSLR side too.


Haydn1971 said:


> 40mm on a 2x crop would be 80mm... I'm not expecting the mirrorless to be anything more than APS-C, it is just as likely to be the same size as a 4/3rds sensor, EF-M ? (micro) in a way of beating Nikon on sensor size (Nikon 1), but not suffering a problem of having to build masses of new lenses, as it would be EF or EF-S comparable.
> 
> So, could we also expect a cheap 12mm and 24mm pancake too ?, giving 24mm and 48mm focal lengths ?


I was thinking the same thing originally. This would be the portrait lens, and then they'd have a few other pancakes and a 14-42 and 14-100+ zoom that would come out eventually too. But, that there haven't been any rumors, and I don't really remember patents for them, so who knows


----------



## taz (May 22, 2012)

I would never buy this lens. I don't like this focal length and I don't like 2.8. 

They should make a new 35mm 1.8 instead with a low price like Nikon's 35mm 1.8!


----------



## mb66energy (May 22, 2012)

I took a lot of photos with a 24mm on an APS-C body and I really love just that focal length. This is equivalent to 38mm on full frame (or near 40mm). And I like that focal length - it is more natural than all the other ones.

Other points: If it's EF and pancake ...


----------



## Photo Gazelle (May 22, 2012)

I have been using a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F/2.0 SL II pancake lens on my 60D for almost six months.
This combination makes for an excellent low-light and walk around experience.
I rarely ever get any 'big camera' attention as compared to when I'm carrying a zoom or larger prime.

This new Canon 40mm F2.8 with autofocus and USM at around $300 will be extremely appealing to me. Specifically the auto-focus as manually focusing on a crop can be challenging in low-light (even at F/2 when using the EG-S screen). I doubt the build quality will match the all-metal Voigtlander or that the manual focus will be as damped and long but, we are talking $300. Furthermore, if the build quality is better than the 50/1.8 (how could it not be) then all the better.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 22, 2012)

It looks like mirrorless is coming soon 

*my 2cents:*
1. L lens on mirrorless = ugly
2. Pancake lens on 5D III = ugly
3. Pancake lens on mirrorless = more money into camera gear
4. L lens on FF = perfect match


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 22, 2012)

All good points...  And i think this will be very well matched with a mirrorless... but i also would be interested in this for my cropped body... i usually carry my camera with me, and on a day-to-day basis with the 50 1.8, just because it is light and small. But i do find it a bit narrow... i would like the extra width from the 40 and the fact it is cheap, light (probably) and really small, means my DSLR is more "toss in the bag" friendly!  Either way, i see the sense in it! bring it on!


----------



## moreorless (May 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This is dumb. F/2 or faster for primes otherwise, WHATs THE POINT?! Just use good zooms.
> 
> I think the canon mirrorless will suprise us with a EF mount system with 1.3X crop factor. It will be not a low end entry level, but a mid-range camera like the fuji X-pro 1. This would make sense for them not to cut into the rebel sales or the G1X sales.
> 
> Fingers crossed that its a optical rangefinder style camera... Or has a VERY VERY good LED viewfinder. ;D



Surely the point is that most "good zooms" are a heck of alot larger and more costly. This lens looks like it will be 1/8th the cost of the new 24-70 and probabley a 1/4 the weight.

The real desiding point is surely going to be the image quality, if its good in the center straight from 2.8 and good across the frame stopped down I can see this being very popular. Affordable primes focused on delivereying good IQ at a more medest appature range is I'd say going to be a growth market as resolution continues to increase.


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 22, 2012)

I would really like this pancake lens to be f2.0 or even better f1.4 ... also if it would make it a little bigger ... that would make an awesome lens for natural light under difficult conditions and still light to always have with you on a FF body ... f2.8 is too slow here ...


----------



## preppyak (May 22, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> I would really like this pancake lens to be f2.0 or even better f1.4 ... also if it would make it a little bigger ... that would make an awesome lens for natural light under difficult conditions and still light to always have with you on a FF body ... f2.8 is too slow here ...


So, you basically want the 35 f/2 or the 35 f/1.4L....Canon already makes those lenses for you. Unless the f/2 is no good and you absolutely have to save that extra 3/4" in lens length; or 7oz is too heavy.

I'd imagine one of the few ways they could make a pancake f/1.4 lens would not involve an EF mount, which would piss people off more than this thing being f/2.8. Or it'd cost more than the 35L, cause it'd have to use some specialty glass to accomplish as much with fewer elements

Also, its not like there are a wealth of low-light pancake lenses out there. I think Samsung has a 30mm f/2, Panasonic has their 20mm f/1.7, there's the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, what else? Most I've seen are at f/2.8, probably for a reason


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> ...i think this will be very well matched with a mirrorless...



I don't think any EF lens is a good match for mirrorless - one reason mirrorless bodies are so small is that the lack of a mirror means a much shorter flange-to-focal-plane distance is possible. So, while I'm sure it will be possible to mount this lens on a hypothetical future Canon mirrorless body, via an adapter, the result will be bigger than a lens designed for such a camera.


----------



## EOBeav (May 22, 2012)

It looks to me like it would appeal to a lot of Rebel owners who are ready to graduate from the kit lens but want something a little sexier than a 50mm f/1.8. Just my take.


----------



## kdsand (May 22, 2012)

I am trying to not get my hopes up.  
Based on the prices of all of Canon's lenses lately I can't help but think $300 is to cheep. 
I'm guessing at this price there won't be usm & build won't be great. 
Canon prove me wrong please! ???


----------



## mb66energy (May 22, 2012)

kdsand said:


> I am trying to not get my hopes up.
> Based on the prices of all of Canon's lenses lately I can't help but think $300 is to cheep.
> I'm guessing at this price there won't be usm & build won't be great.
> Canon prove me wrong please! ???



I think we can expect a very well built lens for $300 - Why?
Lens diameter is below 15 mm, lens element number will be 4 or 6 and I am shure they do not need aspherical lenses or similar expensive tech to achieve great image quality. And close up capability should be a feature to be expected. 
So this lens should be priced between the 1.8 50 and the 1.4 50 IMHO. And that is round about $300!


----------



## AJ (May 22, 2012)

So, compared to the 50/1.8 this lens is more than 1 stop slower, 200 bucks more expensive, for a weight savings of only 50 grams or so.

This lens is not for me, and I'm a miser when it comes to weight (traveling, backpacking with drebels). I'll stick to my nifty fifty.

Yawn...


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 22, 2012)

Size is all relative. After using a big white tele all weekend my 50/1.2 seems tiny.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2012)

moreorless said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is dumb. F/2 or faster for primes otherwise, WHATs THE POINT?! Just use good zooms.
> ...



I disagree, because I think this is going to be an xpro1 style system, not large like a Dslr but not too tiny like the m4/3 systems. Why would canon cut into their g1x profits if it's just as small, cheaper and can change lenses?

I believe it will be large enough to justify fast aperture lenses like a Leica or the xpro1. They just decided not to make a faster lens.


----------



## Etienne (May 22, 2012)

It's too long for a APS-C walk around lens, but it's not a bad way to turn my 5DII into a light weight traveller, although I'd rather it was 35mm. As long as it's sharp at 2.8, I'll probably get one.


----------



## azuff (May 22, 2012)

Haydn1971 said:


> 40mm on a 2x crop would be 80mm... I'm not expecting the mirrorless to be anything more than APS-C, it is just as likely to be the same size as a 4/3rds sensor, EF-M ? (micro) in a way of beating Nikon on sensor size (Nikon 1), but not suffering a problem of having to build masses of new lenses, as it would be EF or EF-S comparable.
> 
> So, could we also expect a cheap 12mm and 24mm pancake too ?, giving 24mm and 48mm focal lengths ?



If you look at Canon competitors and try to find the best strategy to make money :
- Nikon 1 : 2.7 crop factor, speed but forget shallow DOF, Canon cannot compete...
- Olympus / Panasonic : micro 4/3 : 2 crop factor, balance between size, shallow DOF, and speed, canon cannot compete with Olympus E-M5 
- Sony NEX : 1.6 crop factor : shallow DOF but few lenses, where Canon has more than 60 lenses...

Possible strategy : 
make something in between the G1X and the 600D, with size comparable to a Pentax K-01, with EF compatible mount. Add the missing lens to make it really portable : a pancake lens 40mm 2.8, exactly like Pentax. Read the pentax K-01 review on dpreview :

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01

It makes sense. Canon can produce an improved K-01 based on their existing bodies and lenses. With not so much R&D and with good potential sales.

They can compete with Fujifilm X-pro 1 on the price, be similar to Pentax K-01 with improved handling, preserve the DSLR market, offer shallower DOF than 4/3 and Nikon1.

The 40mm pancake is also good on FF (natural angle), you can take your 5D everywhere.
The 40 mm is also good on your old and light Rebel... (wider and smaller than the 50 1.8)


----------



## azuff (May 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Why would canon cut into their g1x profits if it's just as small, cheaper and can change lenses?



Because they can sell more lenses, and even sell these now bodies to existing canon users.
Imagine a standard Canon user buying this small mirrorless with the 40 mm :
- he gets a nice walkaround package
- he gets a nice compact lens for his 5D, a nice portrait lens for his 7D / Rebel
- he gets a nice portable body for nature photography (paired with a 70-300)

It is a lot for the existing canon user, and a lot of money for canon...


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 22, 2012)

"Expect it to be announced in June with the T4i and a new *EF-S 18-135 IS II."*

Oooh Wooow, just what I've been waiting for, another variable aperture kit-zoomz. Meh.


----------



## elflord (May 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I disagree, because I think this is going to be an xpro1 style system, not large like a Dslr but not too tiny like the m4/3 systems. Why would canon cut into their g1x profits if it's just as small, cheaper and can change lenses?
> 
> I believe it will be large enough to justify fast aperture lenses like a Leica or the xpro1. They just decided not to make a faster lens.



I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.


----------



## distant.star (May 22, 2012)

.
Damn, now I'll be making pancakes for breakfast tomorrow!! That stack looks too good.


----------



## pwp (May 22, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> It looks to me like it would appeal to a lot of Rebel owners who are ready to graduate from the kit lens but want something a little sexier than a 50mm f/1.8. Just my take.


Yep this could be spot-on. The 50 f/1.8 is not a sexy lens. It is asonishing value at under $100 new, but few copies really deliver at anything wider than f/5.6. With the pancake, f/2.8 should be a non-issue provided it's sharp wide open. f/2.8 also helps deliver on a low price and very compact dimensions.

I'd be close to 100% certain that this is not a mirrorless lens. Expect to see a new range of glass for the mirrorless Canon. 

Paul Wright


----------



## kdsand (May 23, 2012)

Hmm.

I was just thinking about point & shoots. Perhaps Canon will put out something to draw out the high end point & shoot owners. Like a power shot with removable lenses (very crudely put but anyway).


----------



## Positron (May 23, 2012)

azuff said:


> - Sony NEX : 1.6 crop factor : shallow DOF but few lenses, where Canon has more than 60 lenses...



Remember that the NEX uses a different mount from the Alpha line, despite the exact same size sensor. Canon's EF line will not be meaningful for the vast majority of users if their mirrorless camera/cameras is/are small, as it must be if they want it to be popular.


----------



## Zlatko (May 23, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Well, the 50mm f/1.4 has USM, so that would fit your needs in regards to "high quality 50mm", and the price is within this realm (usually <$400). Aside from adding IS, Canon doesnt seem eager to update their non-L primes, so, I wouldn't expect too much.


The 50/1.4 is more medium quality than high quality. One can make fine photos with it, but it is not built very well.

Based on their prices, the recently announced 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 would seem to be high quality non-L primes. Ideally, Canon would make a 35/2 and 50/2 or 5/1.8 to the same higher standard ... small lenses that are more durable, focus quietly and perform well.


----------



## BXL (May 23, 2012)

elflord said:


> I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.


Why not? Think of the Pentax K-01: it's an APS-C mirrorless system using the Pentax K mount. And Pentax also offers a 40mm f:2.8 pancake for the K-01. Why shouldn't Canon introduce a similar - hopefully less ugly - system?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 23, 2012)

BXL said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.
> ...



Agreed, and make the 40mm F/2 and i'll be happy to drop more cash for canon.


----------



## Rocky (May 23, 2012)

40mm f2.8 lens has been the lens of choice for "fully auto" point and shoot camera for a LONG time in the good old film dates. It is slightly wider than the 50mm "standard lens" but not wide enough to cause "perspective distortion", like the 35mm lens. In order to make it small. Canon havet o keep it at f2.8. Nowadys, DSLR will have "no nise" up to ISO 400, or even higher, easily. So for most situations, f2.8 is more than fast enough. So the 40mm f2.8 will make an ideal walk around lens for FF. As for APS-C, it be comes 64mm equilvalent. It is not wide enough for general use. That make ir quite "useless". Just hope that It is a high quality lens even wide opened, with REAL USM.


----------



## louislbnc (May 23, 2012)

If there's anything true to this rumour it just further proves that Canon is working on a smaller camera with interchangeable lenses. Though I doubt it will be mirrorless. If Canon wants to do it right, they should use EF and EF-S lenses. One of the problem with most mirrorless systems is that the lenses cost a fortune for something that most people either use as an upgrade to a point and shoot giving a bit more freedom or something that's smaller than a DSLR so it gets used a secondary traveling camera.

For example, Nikon's 1 series doesn't seem too attractive, the sensor is too small, there's little point to use a 2.7 crop factor with Nikon lenses and the body isn't that much smaller than a small DSLR. Not to mention that a lot of these camera aren't really pocket sized, oddly shaped and fragile with their zoom lenses.

What I see Canon coming out with is a diminutive DSLR rather than a mirrorless. Look at the Rebels, they're not that big. If the camera is going to use an APS-C sensor, it will still need the same distance between the sensor and lens. Might as well keep the mirror in there. Sure you could make smaller lens that go in a bit more but it could be possible to make quite small pancake lenses for EFS or EF mount. By keeping the mirror, the viewfinder would be much more pleasing to look into and it focus faster. (I'm not sure if the cost of the mirror system offsets the eye-piece display price)

To make it smaller and cheaper, deliberately cut corners. Give it 8-10 Mpx. There's no real need for more. It's not like this is the kind of camera that will get endlessly retouched to do a Vogue cover. With the lower pixel count it should be able to do very well in low light. Which brings me to my next point, with low light capability and being marketed to be used with a new set of fast pancake primes, ditch the flash. Might as well ditch most of the auto-focus system as well, just keep one cross type in the middle. With a simpler camera, it wouldn't need that fast of a computer and might be able to give it a smaller battery too. 

TL;DR I think Canon should look into making a smaller and cheaper APS-C DSLR by sacrificing features in order to compete with mirrorless cameras. Other than being a bit larger, it would have an edge over mirrorless in many other aspects (focus speed, sensor size, low light capability, lens selection, view finder, metering...).


----------



## kdsand (May 23, 2012)

I wonder if production has even started or if they'll be showing off prototypes like they did with the yet elusive 24&28 2.8 I.S..


----------



## BRNexus6 (May 23, 2012)

Will Canon ever release a nice inexpensive 30mm 1.8 for APS-C DSLR's? The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is the best option we have, but it's not a great lens optically. I don't understand Canon.


----------



## BRNexus6 (May 23, 2012)

kdsand said:


> I wonder if production has even started or if they'll be showing off prototypes like they did with the yet elusive 24&28 2.8 I.S..



Those 24/28mm 2.8 lenses are way too expensive. Why would someone choose those two lenses that cost $800 each when you can get the 17-55mm 2.8 IS, or Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 OS for cheaper?


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 23, 2012)

Speaking hypothetically, if a smaller sensor was used with a EF mount, couldn't the distance between the lens mount and sensor be reduced ?


----------



## kdsand (May 23, 2012)

BRNexus6 said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if production has even started or if they'll be showing off prototypes like they did with the yet elusive 24&28 2.8 I.S..
> ...



That's why I just bought a Sigma 17-50mm. The value pushed me :-[ to cheat on Canon. 
No regrets so far .


----------



## elflord (May 23, 2012)

BXL said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see Canon's mirrorless system using the EF mount -- there's not much point removing the mirror, but keeping the space for it. This is designed to be paired with an APS-C DSLR. The point of it is to serve as a budget compact walkaround prime. It's not fast compared to a high grade zoom, but it is fast compared to the kit zoom.
> ...



Why not ? Because if you use an SLR mount with a longer flange distance, you eliminate the size savings that you would otherwise derive from removing a mirror box. The K-01 is about the same size as the Canon Rebel XS (not quite as high because the viewfinder is removed but width and depth are similar). 

Canon already have the capability to build an SLR that is close to the size of the Pentax K-01, the only thing missing are small APS-C lenses (Pentax have several).

They're much better off building a mount with a shorter flange distance which would still allow them to adapt EF mount lenses, then also ship an EF-mount adapter with full electronic coupling (so that it works with EF mount lenses).


----------



## maxxevv (May 24, 2012)

Haydn1971 said:


> Speaking hypothetically, if a smaller sensor was used with a EF mount, couldn't the distance between the lens mount and sensor be reduced ?



No you can't. The flange to sensor distance is fixed as that is the 'projection plane' of the image for a given lens design. The specific design distance which an image is to be projected , relative to its flange mount plane.


----------



## Rocky (May 24, 2012)

Pantax K-01 has the right idea. It let customer use their existing k mount lens WITHOUT adapter. At the same time, Pentax also supplies smaller lens for customers that want to keep the system small. People may agrue that keeping the mirror box will make the camera bigger. The reality is that with the 'pancake lens" the size should be the same as other mirrorless with the lens mounted. 
I thinks Canon should use K-01 as a model and improve on it. The EF mount is large enough to let the lens "sinks" within the mount. That can make the system very small.
Also canon needs to give us fast AF. Even the S100 and the G12 are too slow.


----------



## elflord (May 24, 2012)

Rocky said:


> The reality is that with the 'pancake lens" the size should be the same as other mirrorless with the lens mounted.


Not true, because other mirrorless cameras also have pancake lenses. 

There are two key distances -- the distance from front to rear element and the distance from the rear element to the sensor (the flange distance). 

On a micro 4/3 camera, the flange distance is 20mm, so with a pancake lens you have 20mm + the depth of the pancake lens (20mm for the Panasonic 14mm pancake). Flange distance for most SLRs is over 40mm, so regardless of how thin the pancake is, you get a larger package. 

The two reasons that mirrorless cameras are smaller are (1) they use a shorter flange distance which reduces the distance between front element and sensor by about an inch (so they are about 1 inch thinner for similar optic) and (2) they remove the viewfinder. Mirrorless systems do tend to include more pancake lenses but it is also possible to make pancakes for SLRs (e.g. Pentax make several, Voigtlander also have some). In other words, if you use an SLR mount, you gain little or no size advantage by going mirrorless (again, you lose some height if you throw away the viewfinder)


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 24, 2012)

> Quote from: Haydn1971 on May 23, 2012, 03:52:42 PM
> 
> Speaking hypothetically, if a smaller sensor was used with a EF mount, couldn't the distance between the lens mount and sensor be reduced ?
> 
> ...



Changing the distance between the mount and the sensor would render exsisting EF & EF-s lenses redundant, or at least unable to focus at infinity.

However, there may actually be more in this... 

Canon have already adapted the EF mount so that EF-s lenses can be used, EF-s being lenses with shorter back focus, where the rear element protrudes deeper into the camera throat (thus the need to prevent EF-s lenses mounting on cameras with full frame mirrors)

So if the EF-s idea can work, then could an extension of this idea work? Retaining the EF / EF-s mount and flange distance, but with shorter back focus again lenses, ("EF-x?") so reducing the extension of the lens in front of the camera?

Obviously this would probably mean a mirrorless body but crucially retain an APS-C sensor. Remove the pop up flash, or move it off centre, and you now have a smaller body.

This would make the overall package of camera + lens smaller. Which is a more desirable objective. I mean, how daft do m43 cameras look with anything other than a pancake on them?

Such a solution would mean that although EOS-X users could use their EF and EF-s mount lenses, regular EOS FF and EOS APS-C users could not use the "EF-x" lenses....

UNLESS.. The EF-x lenses could initiate MLU when mounted, say a collapsable design where the rear element stays well forward until the lens is mounted and MLU engaged. So long as your EOS has live view then your EF-x lens would be fine.

I think I've cracked it.


----------



## Rocky (May 24, 2012)

elflord said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is that with the 'pancake lens" the size should be the same as other mirrorless with the lens mounted.
> ...


It is not fair to use MICRO 4/3 as the size comparision. I am talking about APS-C or even FF in my suggestion


----------



## funkboy (May 24, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> So if the EF-s idea can work, then could an extension of this idea work? Retaining the EF / EF-s mount and flange distance, but with shorter back focus again lenses, ("EF-x?") so reducing the extension of the lens in front of the camera? Obviously this would probably mean a mirrorless body but crucially retain an APS-C sensor. Remove the pop up flash, or move it off centre, and you now have a smaller body.



Sounds like the kind of lens Pentax needs for their K-01...

The AF group (and likely also the IS group) would probably still need to be outside the camera body though; I think they'd have an awful hard time squeezing all those electronics into a barrel that fits through an EF mount opening & still maintain an APS-C image circle. Very different from Canon's existing lens designs, but then again they could probably pull it off given their lens design talent. Maybe if they went to a G1X-size image circle it would fit...


----------



## maxxevv (May 25, 2012)

Rocky said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



The idea and physical laws are the same, regardless of sensor size. 

If you extend the logic, it applies to the NEX system too. Why the NEX cameras can be so thin/slim ? Because of their lens flange distance. The rumoured mirrorless lenses from Canon have a shorter back focus plane distance than the Sony ones. From previous CR citations, supposedly only 1mm distance! So you can imagine how close the flange distances are. 

Also, part of the reason with closer flange distances is that it allows the design and use of smaller optics for an equivalent focal plane area of focus.


----------



## Rocky (May 25, 2012)

maxxevv said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > elflord said:
> ...



RIGHT, Let us talk about phsical laws. A small sensor will only need a shorter focal length to give the same angle for a bigger sensor. Micro 3/4 has a mutiplicayion factor of 2. So the 14 mm Panasonic ancake lens will be equilvalent to a 28mm lens on a full frame. The 14mm will need a total of 40mm (20mm for the lense, 20mm for the fringe depth). That is a ration of 2.86. Now apply this ration for the 28mm for FF. than it will need 80mm. That is physical Law. Sensor size does not matter??? The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lense for the same viewing angle.

Thr Fringe diatance can be set to anything by the manufacturer to suit the usage. NEX fringe is set so thin for the using of adapter for the OLD range finder lenses,like Leica, Canon etc. The fringe distance can be set independent of the back focal plane distance. For mirrorless, the lenses have the luxury of going inside of the body and into the body. Have you look at the Leica wide angle lenses lately??? As the the rumores 1mm back focal distance lens from Canon, it is going to be huge. In order for it to work, the rear element of the lens MUST cover the whole sensor. What it mean is the lense will ge going inside of the fringe and way into the body. You just cannot make a cmera body with a 1mm fringe distance.

Here comes the phsical law again. the size of the optic is determined by the focal length, speed of the lens and the associated mechanical and electronics part. It got nothing to do wit hthe fringe distance (except for wide angle lens for range finder cameras, that is another story). Just look at the pancake lens from Panasonics. The optics are small, the lens dismeter is large. That is for the mechanical and theelectronis component. It has got nothing to do with the fringe distance.


----------



## EOBeav (May 25, 2012)

So...what I hear you saying is, size matters?



Rocky said:


> RIGHT, Let us talk about phsical laws. A small sensor will only need a shorter focal length to give the same angle for a bigger sensor. Micro 3/4 has a mutiplicayion factor of 2. So the 14 mm Panasonic ancake lens will be equilvalent to a 28mm lens on a full frame. The 14mm will need a total of 40mm (20mm for the lense, 20mm for the fringe depth). That is a ration of 2.86. Now apply this ration for the 28mm for FF. than it will need 80mm. That is physical Law. Sensor size does not matter??? The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lense for the same viewing angle.
> 
> Thr Fringe diatance can be set to anything by the manufacturer to suit the usage. NEX fringe is set so thin for the using of adapter for the OLD range finder lenses,like Leica, Canon etc. The fringe distance can be set independent of the back focal plane distance. For mirrorless, the lenses have the luxury of going inside of the body and into the body. Have you look at the Leica wide angle lenses lately??? As the the rumores 1mm back focal distance lens from Canon, it is going to be huge. In order for it to work, the rear element of the lens MUST cover the whole sensor. What it mean is the lense will ge going inside of the fringe and way into the body. You just cannot make a cmera body with a 1mm fringe distance.
> 
> Here comes the phsical law again. the size of the optic is determined by the focal length, speed of the lens and the associated mechanical and electronics part. It got nothing to do wit hthe fringe distance (except for wide angle lens for range finder cameras, that is another story). Just look at the pancake lens from Panasonics. The optics are small, the lens dismeter is large. That is for the mechanical and theelectronis component. It has got nothing to do with the fringe distance.


----------



## moreorless (May 25, 2012)

So would a "super EF-S" mount allowing for lenses with 1mm backfocus on a camera that can also mount EF/EF-s lenses actually be possible?

That does seem like an interesting way to apprach the concept of space saving, rather than making the body thinner you have 4cm of the lens optics inside instead. 

Does strike me as a rather "canon like" move aswell since it would make EF/EF-s lenses easier to adapt and balance but not allow for older rangefinder lenses to be used.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 26, 2012)

I really think canon would be wrong to break the 25ish year legacy that EF lenses have. Anything they make from now on should be friendly towards EF. EF is their K, Their F. Their mirrorless should on some level be compatable with EF. How many folk buy Pentax Q's or Nikon 1s, that would be better buying a system that supports legacy and micro lenses.

It's unfortunate to say, but Sony were the most forward looking in this regard. But then again, how many minolta dynax lagacy users have an NEX?


----------



## Rocky (May 26, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I really think canon would be wrong to break the 25ish year legacy that EF lenses have. Anything they make from now on should be friendly towards EF. EF is their K, Their F. Their mirrorless should on some level be compatable with EF. How many folk buy Pentax Q's or Nikon 1s, that would be better buying a system that supports legacy and micro lenses.
> 
> It's unfortunate to say, but Sony were the most forward looking in this regard. But then again, how many minolta dynax lagacy users have an NEX?


Canon should also be friendly to the EF-S also, if the mirrorless is APS-C sensor. I agree that the NEX is forward thinking about letting the owner to be able to use OLD range finder lenses. But in reality, how many people are doing that ?? When a range finder lens is used in NEX or any mirrorless, manual focusing is required. So we need to wide open the lens to get the focusing accuracy from the "lifeview", then stop down the lens to take picture. By that time the screen will be way too dim to be used. Also it is a slow process. The otherway is to use "zone focusing" to avoid wide open and stop down the lens. But we still have to deal with the dim screen.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 26, 2012)

The more I think of this lens the more I want one, but it has to be tiny. This lens on my 5D3 would be my mirrorless mirrored camera.


----------



## maxxevv (May 26, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RIGHT, Let us talk about phsical laws. A small sensor will only need a shorter focal length to give the same angle for a bigger sensor. Micro 3/4 has a mutiplicayion factor of 2. So the 14 mm Panasonic ancake lens will be equilvalent to a 28mm lens on a full frame. The 14mm will need a total of 40mm (20mm for the lense, 20mm for the fringe depth). That is a ration of 2.86. Now apply this ration for the 28mm for FF. than it will need 80mm. That is physical Law. Sensor size does not matter??? The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lense for the same viewing angle.
> 
> Thr Fringe diatance can be set to anything by the manufacturer to suit the usage. NEX fringe is set so thin for the using of adapter for the OLD range finder lenses,like Leica, Canon etc. The fringe distance can be set independent of the back focal plane distance. For mirrorless, the lenses have the luxury of going inside of the body and into the body. Have you look at the Leica wide angle lenses lately??? As the the rumores 1mm back focal distance lens from Canon, it is going to be huge. In order for it to work, the rear element of the lens MUST cover the whole sensor. What it mean is the lense will ge going inside of the fringe and way into the body. You just cannot make a cmera body with a 1mm fringe distance.
> 
> Here comes the phsical law again. the size of the optic is determined by the focal length, speed of the lens and the associated mechanical and electronics part. It got nothing to do wit hthe fringe distance (except for wide angle lens for range finder cameras, that is another story). Just look at the pancake lens from Panasonics. The optics are small, the lens dismeter is large. That is for the mechanical and theelectronis component. It has got nothing to do with the fringe distance.



You've got your physics a little mixed up and the topic/areas being discussed here too it seems. 

When we talk about back focus plane distances and how it affects the size of the lens, we are referring to sensors of the same and equal size, not across different sizes. When you get one design with a back focus plane at 1mm versus one at 30mm, the optics required for the shorter one is smaller. Par equal area of focus and within limits of optics diffraction. Which is why Leica comes into such a picture. It was design to use FF (in the film days) but yet for equivalent focal length and aperture lens, they were smaller than say Canon or Nikon designs, even if they were all full manual, non-AF lenses. 

In this case of Canon's mirrorless, nobody seems to be certain for sure what's the sensor size. And we can only infer from the back focus plane distance that for the sensor size they are designing for, they are trying very hard to miniaturize the size of the lenses. And for what ever size sensor they are using. Be it a FF, 1.3x, 1.6x or 1.85x crop, it SHOULD be (within limitations of cost and practicality) smaller than lenses designed for sensors of equivalent crop factor.


----------



## Rocky (May 26, 2012)

maxxevv said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > RIGHT, Let us talk about phsical laws. A small sensor will only need a shorter focal length to give the same angle for a bigger sensor. Micro 3/4 has a mutiplicayion factor of 2. So the 14 mm Panasonic ancake lens will be equilvalent to a 28mm lens on a full frame. The 14mm will need a total of 40mm (20mm for the lense, 20mm for the fringe depth). That is a ration of 2.86. Now apply this ration for the 28mm for FF. than it will need 80mm. That is physical Law. Sensor size does not matter??? The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lense for the same viewing angle.
> ...



You are the one that mixed up the sensor size. I started out with the Canon 40mm pancake lens which is supposed to be for the FF. You switched the discussion to micro 4/3 and use it to justify a smaller lens. 
My physics is right. The reason why some Leica lenses are smaller than DSLR lenses is that the 35mm lens for Leica does not need the retro-telephoto design that is manditory for DLSR. When you look at the 21 mm Leica lens (it is a retro-telephoto design). It is not small at all. This proves that the fringe distance does not decrease the size of the lens. Even the 50mm Summicron, it is longer than the 50mm Canon DSLR lens. The longer Leica lense is just as big as the DSLR lenses. FYI, f stop is define as the focal length/diameter of the aperture. This will limit the minimum total size of the lens for a given focal length, regardless of the fringe. I suggest you look at the Leica lenses physically before any further discussion. just as I said before if there is a 1mm back focus plane lens exist, the rear element must cover the ENTIRE sensor to make it work. Therefore this lens cannot be small. Did you take a class in optics???


----------



## Positron (May 26, 2012)

Rocky said:


> maxxevv said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Well you could do it, but the challenges in keeping the aberrations in check would be daunting, to say the least.

On the other hand, if the sensor itself were sufficiently curved, you could get as close to it with a normal rear element as you please. A combination of the two approaches could be reasonable, while significantly slimming the total package.

Seriously though if anyone has it right it's Intel. They don't break what's working, they just slim it down a little more on every other iteration, using the ones in between to improve the current process. It works because no single step is too ambitious, so they always make forward progress and never have complete flops. Keep doing that for a few years and you can have some seriously killer products.


----------



## noncho (May 30, 2012)

Well, it's not bad idea for lens like this, but for me it's to close to my 60 2.8 macro.
I would go for unexpensive EF-s 30 1.8 and 12 2.8, but from the prices of new 24 and 28 IS it seems that Canon don't want to give us good normal price lens.


----------

