# 40mm Pancake Killed the 50mm??



## rhysb123 (Jul 16, 2012)

Hi,

I've had my 40mm f2.8 STM Pancake for a few weeks now. It's barely left my camera. I love it.

I'm seriously wondering if I'll ever use my 50mm f1.4 again - ?

OK, the 50mm is faster but I reckon the IQ from the 40mm is better. Plus, there's something about the 40mm that just 'works' for me.

Basically I wondering what other 40mm users think? 

(I'm also thinking about selling my 50mm to fund the 135mm L, so I need a bit of convincing please!).

Any thoughts?

Cheers

Rhys


----------



## smithy (Jul 16, 2012)

Which body are you using it on, Rhys? Crop or FF?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 16, 2012)

I find f/1.4 and faster lenses ideal for indoor pics of single subjects (ISO 1600-3200). f/2.8 lenses are too slow to use in dim light indoors without flash. If you use flash indoors, then ditch the 50 f/1.4 because it gives you no advantage over other lenses.


----------



## pwp (Jul 16, 2012)

I like the reference to the 40 f/2.8 as being a functional bodycap. This week I took the family on a five day holiday down the coast, and used the non-work opportunity to run the 40 f/2.8 & Sigma 50 F/1.4 against each other. I find the focal length difference between 40 & 50 as perceptually similar to 24 & 28. Not much in it.

It's stimulating to go away with basically just one focal length. I enjoy the paradox that sometimes you need some kind of limitations in order to free your imagination and creativity. I've often traveled with just the 24-105 and loved the limitation. This time it was 40 & 50 on 5D3. As far as IQ goes, the 40 was a match for the 50 (which is a great copy) in the f/4.5-f/8 range. At f/2.8 the Sigma 50 was well ahead of the 40. 

But it's not always about IQ. The 40 is fun in a weird intangible sort of way. People respond differently to the reduced mass. It's more compact and lighter on long walks and was easier for my young kids to handle. I like my kids to understand & appreciate quality. Overall, the 40 was neither better or worse, just different.

I do tend to shoot action moments with people, and on this holiday also a new breathtakingly active six month old Border Collie pup. The AF (AI Servo) was appreciably quicker with the Sigma and delivered more keepers in highly dynamic situations. In static situations the AF difference was imperceptible.

40 vs 50? I'll be keeping both lenses for now. But if one just _HAD _to go it would likely be the 40... f/1.4 vs f/2.8 is just no contest.

PW


----------



## nebugeater (Jul 16, 2012)

I am confused on this. You prefer the 2.8 to the 1.4 ? 



pwp said:


> 40 vs 50? I'll be keeping both lenses for now. But if one just _HAD _to go it would likely be the 40... f/1.4 vs f/2.8 is just no contest.
> 
> PW


----------



## michi (Jul 16, 2012)

I don't know, I have both the 40 and the Canon 50mm 1.4. Both are fairly new purchases, so I'm still excited about both which is probably a better comparison. And with that said, I like the 50 1.4 better. Now, if it was a 40 1.4, that might be different.
I like the option of using the 1.4 in lower light, and I like how you can get even less depth of field to make things pop. Sure, at 1.4 the 50 isn't as sharp, but it's still good enough if need be.
I'm definitely keeping both though, since the 40mm is so portable. If you just take 24-105 or just a 70-200 for some reason, you can always stuff the 40mm in a side pocket without bulking up the bag or increasing the weight substantially.


----------



## rhysb123 (Jul 16, 2012)

@smithy : I'm using it on a 5D and a 7D so I've got a 40mm lens on one and a 65mm on the other I guess.

It's a weird one to say that I prefer the 2.8 to 1.4. Personally, I find the 50mm f1.4 soft and unpredictable at 1.4 and I tend to use it at 2.0 or 2.2. When I think of it like that then the 40mm wins the battle - as it's lighter, sharper and the difference between 2.2 and 2.8 is negligable. 

I think I want the 135mm L, that's the real problem! Unless I ditch the 50mm then there will be no 135mm! 

Dilema!


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 16, 2012)

rhysb123 said:


> @smithy : I'm using it on a 5D and a 7D so I've got a 40mm lens on one and a 65mm on the other I guess.
> 
> It's a weird one to say that I prefer the 2.8 to 1.4. Personally, I find the 50mm f1.4 soft and unpredictable at 1.4 and I tend to use it at 2.0 or 2.2. When I think of it like that then the 40mm wins the battle - as it's lighter, sharper and the difference between 2.2 and 2.8 is negligable.
> 
> ...



Softness at f/2 or wider was my experience too when I borrowed a friend's 50 f/1.4. If you don't like it wide open, then you'll be happier with the 135 than your 50 f/1.4. If you have something like the EF-S 17-55 or 24-70 already, then you're right that less than 1 stop won't make a big difference. I found the 35L and 50L to be much better wide open than the 50 f/1.4. If you're looking for better wide open performance near 50mm, then you'd have to look at the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and the Canon 35L and 50L.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 16, 2012)

The main reason I buy prime lens is SPEED + BOKEH

This is just me, f2.8 for prime? well...not quite fast enough for me. My 50mm f1.4 is SUPER sharp at f1.8 - 2

And if I want sharp lens at f2.8, then my 24-70 II will take care of that - I HOPE  

$199 Vs $2300 ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 16, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> The main reason I buy prime lens is SPEED.
> 
> This is just me, f2.8 for prime? well...not quite fast enough for me. My 50mm f1.4 is SUPER sharp at f1.8 - 2
> 
> ...



I buy prime for IQ and low weight.

DOF on fast lens is almost unusable for non telephoto when wide open.


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 16, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> If you use flash indoors, then ditch the 50 f/1.4 because it gives you no advantage over other lenses.



Aperture controls more than just light, you know. It's more important function is to control depth of field. Even if you shoot at f/2, you gain a lot of background blur over f/2.8.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 16, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > If you use flash indoors, then ditch the 50 f/1.4 because it gives you no advantage over other lenses.
> ...



.... and also the far eye OOF as well


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> .... and also the far eye OOF as well



If you're shooting in a situation where you need more DOF, then you can get there on an f/1.4 lens. If you're shooting solely with an f/2.8, you can't get any wider. This thread isn't about shooting technique, it's about the virtues of one lens over another.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 16, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > .... and also the far eye OOF as well
> ...



Yes, but if the OP is not using the it at f/1.4 because it does not meet his IQ criteria and thinks that f/2 to f/2.2 is the biggest he is willing to go, then the DOF difference between that and f/2.8 is not that great. Is it worth it for him to carry around an extra lens for 2/3 or 1 stop difference in DOF? Only the OP can decide that, but that is also why I mentioned primes around the same focal length that are sharper wide open. From what the OP writes, it looks like he can get more value from the 40 than his 50, which is why he is considering selling his 50 to fund the 135. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't do one much good to have unused lenses -- if he thinks that he would use the 135 more than the 50 given that he likes what the 40 does, then the trade makes sense to me.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 16, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Well put


----------



## rhysb123 (Jul 16, 2012)

Hmmmm. 

I might be selling the 50mm soon! I need to sleep on it


Thank you everyone 

Rhys.

PS - Any last input before I hit eBay?!?


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 16, 2012)

I will hold on to both until they break. And if there is Mark II 50 1.4, I will get one for sure. It's more about the bokeh to have the 1.4.


----------



## ecka (Jul 16, 2012)

There was a time when I was looking for a nice 50 prime for my 7D, but I didn't buy the Canon 50/1.4 because I knew that it is too soft at 1.4 so wouldn't use it wide open anyway. I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body. However, to make a fast prime really shine, you need a FF camera. Some say that Canon 50/1.4 is pretty decent wide open on a FF camera.

Reasons why I bought my 40mm:
[nice optics and compact design]
[smooth and silent focus ring]
[good price and it fits FF]
[I use a flash for low light, not a wide aperture lens]
[FF DoF seems to be much thinner than APS-C, so f/2.8 is fine]
[when I want a shallow DoF I reach for something like 85/1.8 anyway...]
[it's a nice high-tech EOS body cap , now I can take my camera everywhere (in a small case) and not look like a tourist ]


----------



## syder (Jul 16, 2012)

ecka said:


> I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body.



On a crop body you use the sweet spot of a FF lens, so it's far more likely to be sharp at the borders... The sigma 50/f1.4 is known as sharp in the centre and soft at the border...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1


----------



## kdsand (Jul 16, 2012)

The pleasant surprise for me is how the 40 starts off crisp & clean at 2.8 - there haven't been many lens copies that I have run across that are as sharp wide open or even stopped down to 2.8 or even 4.0. 

I also love the stealth factor in crowds (street photography), people just don't seem to care when i point the 40 at them.


----------



## ecka (Jul 16, 2012)

syder said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body.
> ...



You are right about the sweet spot. However, there is a big difference in FF vs Crop sharpness. APS-C is using 60% less glass surface, 60% less light for similar amount of pixels and therefore it produces softer images. It's like if you cut the top of a pyramid, you still get a pyramid, only smaller. So, sometimes FF corners can be as sharp as the center of an APS-C image. While the APS-C image isn't sharp from corner to corner just because it uses the sweet spot, it's the same "pyramid", only softer. FF sensor gets a lot less light in the corners due to stronger vignetting and this may be affecting the sharpness as well. For me, corner sharpness at f/1.4 is not that important, because most of the time corners are out of focus.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 16, 2012)

i got the new sigma 50 f1.4 (same build as the wicked 85) and it is awesome, I love the 40mm but the sigma 50 is sharp at 1.4 and like the 85 you will cut yourself at f2 if not carefull also the AF on the sigma 50 is super quick and increadably accurate


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

Nope. I will always prefer a fast 50mm but the 40mm is a nice body cap. ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Nope. I will always prefer a fast 50mm but the 40mm is a nice body cap. ;D



Nobody will ever take my 50L, 50 f/1.4, and nifty fifty away from me


----------



## woodywup (Jul 17, 2012)

I got 40mmf/2.8 last week, since then it stick on my 5DmkII never come down.
It's so handy and can stay in my laptop bag as well.
I'm consider same thing to get 135L. good luck


----------



## dshipley (Jul 17, 2012)

rhysb123 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've had my 40mm f2.8 STM Pancake for a few weeks now. It's barely left my camera. I love it.
> 
> ...



Since you have the 40 2.8 I'd personally suggest selling the 50 to fund the 135L. The 135L is an amazing lens and after using a 40 last night the 40 seems like a great mid range option until Canon updates their 50s.


----------



## rhysb123 (Jul 17, 2012)

@dshipley

That's what I'm currently thinking too!



Rhys


----------



## smithy (Jul 18, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> rhysb123 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, the 50mm is faster but I reckon the IQ from the 40mm is better. Plus, there's something about the 40mm that just 'works' for me.
> ...


That 35mm L is an epic lens, from what I've seen or heard. It's just a shame it's ten times the price of the 40mm...


----------



## ecka (Jul 18, 2012)

smithy said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > rhysb123 said:
> ...



Not 10 times the price, only 7


----------



## smithy (Jul 18, 2012)

ecka said:


> smithy said:
> 
> 
> > BozillaNZ said:
> ...


In New Zealand, where I'm from (and I assume BozillaNZ is also from), the 35mm lens is 9.2x the price of the 40mm. $2585 vs $280.


----------



## ecka (Jul 18, 2012)

smithy said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > smithy said:
> ...



Well, at least those are not euros


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 18, 2012)

smithy said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > smithy said:
> ...



what!? thats retarded

give these guys a call I am sure they would probably ship accross the pond
http://www.leedervillecameras.com.au/CatalogueRetrieve.aspx?ProductID=2946434&A=SearchResult&SearchID=4967087&ObjectID=2946434&ObjectType=27

their 40mm is $199 too


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 19, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > There was a time when I was looking for a nice 50 prime for my 7D, but I didn't buy the Canon 50/1.4 because I knew that it is too soft at 1.4 so wouldn't use it wide open anyway. I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body. However, to make a fast prime really shine, you need a FF camera. Some say that Canon 50/1.4 is pretty decent wide open on a FF camera.
> ...



+1

This is why there is a 50macro, 100 macro and a 180 macro. They take different perspectives of the same objects


----------



## ecka (Jul 19, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > There was a time when I was looking for a nice 50 prime for my 7D, but I didn't buy the Canon 50/1.4 because I knew that it is too soft at 1.4 so wouldn't use it wide open anyway. I bought the Sigma 50/1.4 instead, it was very nice, pretty sharp at 1.4 even on a crop body. However, to make a fast prime really shine, you need a FF camera. Some say that Canon 50/1.4 is pretty decent wide open on a FF camera.
> ...



I understand the perspective thing and that's just my opinion. I like 85/1.8 better and it is not that long on FF. I never felt the need for having all of the fast primes in my collection (24, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200). What I want is 35 + 85 and 40 for the reasons I've mentioned before. However, I would get all the L primes if I could afford it ... even if I'd rarely use half of those. Before 40 came out, I was considering CZ 50/2 Macro for "do it all" lens, but my 150Macro is just too good to lose this double duty lens competition + it has AF. So, for now, I'm just trying different options, but it seems like 40 is here to stay .

P.S. I really like that 40 has a hard-stop on infinity.


----------



## ecka (Jul 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> +1
> 
> This is why there is a 50macro, 100 macro and a 180 macro. They take different perspectives of the same objects



There is more - 35macro, 60macro, 70macro, 90macro ... 150macro was my choice and I'm still saving for MP-E 65 .
I think that at 1:1 or higher magnifications the perspective is not that important (if at all). What matters is the lens working distance.


----------



## smithy (Jul 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> what!? thats retarded
> 
> give these guys a call I am sure they would probably ship accross the pond
> http://www.leedervillecameras.com.au/CatalogueRetrieve.aspx?ProductID=2946434&A=SearchResult&SearchID=4967087&ObjectID=2946434&ObjectType=27
> ...


Haha, I don't know if you've done a currency conversion recently, but it looks like prices in Oz are almost as bad as NZ.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 19, 2012)

ecka said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



DOF is though - and the focal length impacts that when getting the 1:1


----------

