# Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 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=""></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="" 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=""></a></div>
<p><strong>Here it is

</strong>Here’s a photo of the upcoming Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake lens. It looks like it has a 52mm filter thread, so this thing really is tiny!</p>
<p><strong>Pricing?

</strong>I’ve heard that pricing will be sub $200, waiting on confirmation of that.</p>
<p><strong>What’s a pancake lens?</strong>

I still get this question a bunch, so <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/hands-reviews/pancake-lenses-are-small-light-and-visually-succinct&BI=2446&KBID=3296" target="_blank">here’s a great article</a></strong> from B&H about the little lenses.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/canon-40mm-f28.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-10127" title="canon-40mm-f28" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/canon-40mm-f28.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="301" /></a> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Astro (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

maybe im strange.. but an EF 40mm f2.8 pancake, im not interested at all.
a faster one.. maybe.. but this.... nah!

but im curious what canon has in mind .....


----------



## zim (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

Awww that things so cute! looks like you should be able stack them ;D

Would be fun on a rebel but looks more like a mirrorless lens to me


----------



## missitnoonan (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

I really don't get it. I'm a crop shooter and this focal length seems too long for a walk around lens and is there really any benefit to something this small on the FF bodies?

30mm or so and you might have sold me, besides it isn't as if my 35mm f2 is all that big.


----------



## zim (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

Would a lens hood screw onto the filter then?


----------



## Joellll (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

It definitely looks interesting and cute, but the fact that it's rather slow, I'd still choose my Voigtlander 40mm f/2.


----------



## mws (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



zim said:


> Would a lens hood screw onto the filter then?




Yep. That's how most older style lens hoods work. Lens cap goes over the hood then, at least on the ones I have.


----------



## LuCoOc (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

maybe it is for the 1.3 crop sensor mirrorless - anounced "sooner than later"  

*just dreaming*

looks fun to me. lets hope it is not too pricy. might get one if it's priced similar to the 50 1.8


----------



## sjp010 (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

I love it! Definitely interested. Is there room for an AF motor in there? If not, I'd probably prefer the Voigtlander version that has another stop of aperture.


----------



## JoeShmoe (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



sjp010 said:


> I love it! Definitely interested. Is there room for an AF motor in there? If not, I'd probably prefer the Voigtlander version that has another stop of aperture.



If there's an AF/MF switch, I assume there's a motor


----------



## preppyak (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



JoeShmoe said:


> If there's an AF/MF switch, I assume there's a motor


Yep, that's what I was thinking.

And I still don't know what to make of this. If it means the mirrorless will have EF mount, awesome. If not, then its just a strange lens. Too slow to be worth it over the 50mm f/1.8 (and probably more expensive)...not much cheaper than a 35mm f/2...no IS to make it like the 24 and 28mm lenses. It doesn't really fit obviously within any strategy area. Just seems like they wanted a pancake lens for the sake of having one.


----------



## kode (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

I'm getting one. Definitely.

I have the CV Ultron, and it's my daily driver, but I'm a pancake junkie, and 40mm is my favourite focal length. Haven't got any AF ones yet, though, so this'll be a nice occasional change from the Ultron. Looks like it's slightly smaller, too.


----------



## zim (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

wish it was white ;D


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

Starting to look like f2.8 is going to be the standard minimum for non L primes.... 

This could mean two things, Canon pushing people into buying top end primes for anything less, or alternatively realignment of the ranges to have f2.8 "cheap" primes, entry level L primes and moving the current top range primes up the price list.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

This might be my dream lens I really waited for ... and I will buy one if it has good IQ, good close focus range and costs less than 300EUR/$.

I liked the 24 mm for crop cameras which correspond to 40 mm for FF cameras and that new thing might be a great lens for FF cams, hopefuly a mirrorless FF which accepts EF-S lenses.

I am really dazzled ... I hoped for so long that canon will produce a 40mm lens with compact design ...and they really do it ... pure fun ...


----------



## preppyak (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



Haydn1971 said:


> Starting to look like f2.8 is going to be the standard minimum for non L primes....
> 
> This could mean two things, Canon pushing people into buying top end primes for anything less, or alternatively realignment of the ranges to have f2.8 "cheap" primes, entry level L primes and moving the current top range primes up the price list.


Based on the 24mm and 28mm, I'd go ahead and say the former...neither are "cheap" primes or anywhere close to it. That said, if f/2.8 is the standard for their primes, they'll stop selling primes. If the 17-55 does f/2.8 and IS, there are limited reasons to get the 24mm adn 28mm primes. And if you need low-light for cheap, you'd get the 50mm f/1.8 over the 40mm f/2.8.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



mb66energy said:


> hopefuly a mirrorless FF which accepts EF-S lenses.


You do realize that's basically impossible. EF-S has an image circle that fits a crop sensor, on a full-frame sensor, you'd end up with a vignette covering the difference between a crop and full-frame sensor. 

Now, you could probably technically use some of the lenses at certain focal lengths (just like I can use my Tokina 11-16 at 16mm on full-frame), but the image quality would suffer, and you can't base an entire system around the notion of hacking together solutions. 

Some examples
http://shphotography.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/5d-sigma-30mm-14/
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



missitnoonan said:


> I really don't get it. I'm a crop shooter and this focal length seems too long for a walk around lens and is there really any benefit to something this small on the FF bodies?
> 
> 30mm or so and you might have sold me, besides it isn't as if my 35mm f2 is all that big.



The textbook definition of a "normal" lens is one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the imaging area. If you remember your Pythagoras, a full-frame 24mm x 36mm sensor has a diagonal of 43.27mm, meaning this 40 gives you as close to a normal lens as you'll find. I could see mounting it to an un-gripped 5D for a street / party type of setup. Hell, it looks like it's no bigger than an extension tube!

b&


----------



## Astro (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



preppyak said:


> And I still don't know what to make of this. If it means the mirrorless will have EF mount, awesome. If not, then its just a strange lens. Too slow to be worth it over the 50mm f/1.8 (and probably more expensive)...not much cheaper than a 35mm f/2...no IS to make it like the 24 and 28mm lenses. It doesn't really fit obviously within any strategy area. Just seems like they wanted a pancake lens for the sake of having one.



yep and it looks pretty stupid on a DSLR


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

if its optically decent and really sub /€ 200 I may pick one up as an ultra-light "outdoors/mountaineering" lens. 

This lens demonstrates, just how small modern full-frame-capable lenses can be built. With AF. It proves, that AF does NOT make lenses bigger than MF-lenses, rather the other way round. 

High time for a KILLER FF mirrorless, Canon. Stick the 5D3 sensor plus a great new hybrid FPPD & CD-AF system in a small body for a smaller price than the 5D3. After all, there are some savings by avoiding the cost for materials, manufacturing and labor-intensive high-precision-assembly of mirrorbox and prism!


----------



## missitnoonan (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*




TrumpetPower! said:


> missitnoonan said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't get it. I'm a crop shooter and this focal length seems too long for a walk around lens and is there really any benefit to something this small on the FF bodies?
> ...



Totally get the focal length for FF, but is there any benefit to something this small on such a big camera? Doesn't look like it would even extend past the hand grip! Hey, performance being equal I guess smaller is always better, but things like the 35 f2 and 50 1.8 are already tiny and light.


----------



## elflord (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



preppyak said:


> JoeShmoe said:
> 
> 
> > If there's an AF/MF switch, I assume there's a motor
> ...



Doesn't make sense for mirrorless to have an EF mount. They could be trying to make a smaller SLR.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



zim said:


> wish it was white ;D



EPIC


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*

Pricing to possibly be sub 200. That's NOT even close to the 35 f/2. This will be a nice little niche lens easy to add to anyone's kit. Nothing to blow you away, just another FL which will work for some and not others, LIKE ANY LENS.

Hmmmmm 64mm. I could do that.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



elflord said:


> Doesn't make sense for mirrorless to have an EF mount. They could be trying to make a smaller SLR.



you are right, I overlooked that one ... :-[


----------



## mws (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



AvTvM said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't make sense for mirrorless to have an EF mount. They could be trying to make a smaller SLR.
> ...



Unless they have some how changed the mount, like you can't put a EF-S lens on a FF camera.


----------



## pwp (Jun 6, 2012)

At under $200 is this going to be a nail in the coffin of the 50 f/1.8? On a Rebel size body this becomes a very compact lightweight unit. They'll sell boatloads of this lens. 

PW


----------



## hammar (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm already in love with this lens! I have a feeling it will be a bottleneck on the 5D3 IQ though...

On a side note: why are you all referring to the aperture as "speed/fast", in what way is a 2.8-lens faster than a 5.6-lens (the latter has a smaller maximum aperture which is not to say it is faster in any way)?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



zim said:


> Would a lens hood screw onto the filter then?


same as the 50mm f1.8 yeah a hood needs to screw in but i got a great one on ebay where you screw in a bayonet ring then you can use a bayonet hood on it

i'll dig up the link, here you go

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Lens-Hood-Shade-Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-8-II-USM-52mm-Thread-Adapter-Ring-ES-62-L-/160816196853?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item2571646cf5


----------



## J (Jun 7, 2012)

hammar said:


> On a side note: why are you all referring to the aperture as "speed/fast", in what way is a 2.8-lens faster than a 5.6-lens (the latter has a smaller maximum aperture which is not to say it is faster in any way)?



Larger aperture lenses deliver more light to the sensor, which means you can use a faster shutter speed.

f/5.6 is two stops slower than f/2.8. Say you're already using ISO 1600, and the f/5.6 lens can only get 1/15 shutter speed. The f/2.8 could achieve 1/60 under the same conditions, which can make all the difference sometimes...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 7, 2012)

pwp said:


> At under $200 is this going to be a nail in the coffin of the 50 f/1.8? On a Rebel size body this becomes a very compact lightweight unit. They'll sell boatloads of this lens.
> 
> PW



I doubt it. The 66mm equivalent on a crop body is going to be weird...too long for normal / walkaround, too short for portraiture. And the Plastic Fantastic is significantly faster, plus it's the standard normal on full frame and the standard portrait on crop.

Really, I see the 40 as being something primarily of interest for pocketable street / party photography with a 5D. It's just about perfect for that (a stop faster would be nice, but that'd be my only complaint), and just about useless for anything else.

b&


----------



## Rocky (Jun 7, 2012)

Canon should have made a 30mm f2.8 EF-S mount. This will make a really small package for the existing APS-C DSLR. It should be doable. The EF-S mount allows the lens goes in the mount for another 9 mm.


----------



## Zlatko (Jun 7, 2012)

It looks like a delightful lens! I am absolutely thrilled with the small size. What a great way to make a big full frame camera smaller for family photography and travel. This is an extremely useful focal length with a very useable widest aperture, and it has AF. The price sounds very reasonable. Fantastic!!!


----------



## pwp (Jun 7, 2012)

hammar said:


> On a side note: why are you all referring to the aperture as "speed/fast", in what way is a 2.8-lens faster than a 5.6-lens (the latter has a smaller maximum aperture which is not to say it is faster in any way)?



Faster...we're not talking about 0-100 kph or AF speed. It's the long established convention to refer to lenses with a larger maximum aperture as being "faster". 

So an f/1.4 50mm lens is _faster _than an f/2.8 40mm, which in turn is faster than a f/5.6 400mm lens. In this context it refers only to maximum aperture, not focal length, AF speed or anything else. Get the idea?

PW


----------



## pwp (Jun 7, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Canon should have made a 30mm f2.8 EF-S mount. This will make a really small package for the existing APS-C DSLR. It should be doable. The EF-S mount allows the lens goes in the mount for another 9 mm.



Yep I'm inclined to agree on the 30mm argument, but not EF-S. Could be the 40mm is the first of a small pancake parlour of Canon glass. 

PW


----------



## michi (Jun 7, 2012)

The lens looks attractive, but in the end, on my DSLR, I don't think it makes much sense. I didn't buy my DSLR for size (as in small size) and my goal wasn't to get the smallest lenses available but the best quality I can afford. Also 2.8 isnt something that impressive on this focal length. Now if it was 2.0 or 2.2, that would make it a bit more attractive for me. Either way, unless this turns out to be an amazing performer, I will save my money and buy a "big" lens.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm actually pretty excited about this lens..
It's going to make a great "emergency" low light lens for my mk3.
Yes, i do have the 50mm but on nights out and all i really want to bring is 1 camera and a light lens, it think this fits perfectly. 40mm will be great for group shots as well…sometimes the 50 is a little too tight.


----------



## Zlatko (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



missitnoonan said:


> Hey, performance being equal I guess smaller is always better, but things like the 35 f2 and 50 1.8 are already tiny and light.


Those lenses have the old noisy AF motors. I'm hoping this little 40mm lens has a quiet AF motor.


----------



## Scott (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm excited, I'll be getting one for my 5dii. I hope it has a nice short MFD.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2012)

i still cant see the point of all these f2.8 primes coming out


----------



## moreorless (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



AvTvM said:


> if its optically decent and really sub /€ 200 I may pick one up as an ultra-light "outdoors/mountaineering" lens.
> 
> This lens demonstrates, just how small modern full-frame-capable lenses can be built. With AF. It proves, that AF does NOT make lenses bigger than MF-lenses, rather the other way round.
> 
> High time for a KILLER FF mirrorless, Canon. Stick the 5D3 sensor plus a great new hybrid FPPD & CD-AF system in a small body for a smaller price than the 5D3. After all, there are some savings by avoiding the cost for materials, manufacturing and labor-intensive high-precision-assembly of mirrorbox and prism!



I'm not so sure about that, its a lens with a modest appature at a focal lenght thats easier to achieve smaller sizes in. You look at the Pentax limated range and the 40mm is tiny just like this where as other focal lenghts are significantly larger.

I'd guess thats probabley why Canon have gone with this focal lenght, its the only way to produce something that eye catchingly compact and relatively inexpensive.


----------



## paulc (Jun 7, 2012)

This is going to be my new vacation lens. Slap it on my Rebel, rip off the grip and go light.


----------



## coldcaption (Jun 7, 2012)

For sub-$200, I don't think I could possibly say no. I hope that price comes true! I'd even forgive it for lacking distance and aperture markings.


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm surprised at all the "I don't getz it ..." posts 

I'm going crazy with all the cameras I have. A S100 which I always have. A Fuji X100 for when I want good pictures and need to go light and unobtrusive. A 5DMKII with a load of the best lenses and 600 flashes and gear for when I'm serious. A G12 as my sons camera, another P&S for doing short videos on vacation, my wife's camera ... (we are a photography family on vacation)

You know the hardest part? Managing all the batteries and chargers. I have a big pelican case mostly dedicated to juice. And keeping all those charged can be a mess, spend half my time running around keeping track of what is drained. 

If the IQ is any good this is a dream lens for a small light setup. The 5DMKII isn't that big or heavy of a body, the weight, size and obtrusiveness is all in the lens. If they keep it up and have a series of pancakes I can ditch the Fuji and probably the S100. I am all over it


----------



## pwp (Jun 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i still cant see the point of all these f2.8 primes coming out



Provided they are sharp wide open, it's a good thing. The high ISO performance of current bodies is making brighter, faster lenses less of an essential buy for most photographers. And secondly an f/2.8 lens is cheaper to deliver to the market than the brighter, faster glass. Photographers who _need _f/1.4 lenses to suit their shooting style will have to do what they've always done, pay the necessary dollars for those sweet, premium L primes.

PW


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2012)

for me personally i find the 5D and 16-35 small enough and light enough, I just dont see any upside from an f2.8 prime. if its only f2.8 i'd rather the flexability of the zoom. I could possibly see the use of this lens for shooting infrared for me since the 16-35 and the 50 f1.4 both produce the hot spot problems but it would have to significantly outperform the 50 f1.8 when stopped down


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 7, 2012)

I take back me bashing the 40mm 2.8 lens for not being f/2. 

It looks so awesome! Im already sold.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 7, 2012)

pwp said:


> Yep I'm inclined to agree on the 30mm argument, but not EF-S. Could be the 40mm is the first of a small pancake parlour of Canon glass.
> 
> PW


Well EF-S would be the only way a 30mm f/2.8 gets released. Seeing as it would be crazy for Canon to release an EF 30mm f/2.8 non-IS lens for <$200 just weeks after releasing an EF 28mm f/2.8 IS for like $7-800. Nobody would buy the IS version.


----------



## PHYSICA (Jun 7, 2012)

Actually… is STM just similar to the Micro USM used at the old EF-S 18-55 II USM……?

That what I always talking about……please canon use the Micro USM to all of the other non USM lens instead….. I hate the electric drill on my camera….

BTW , the pancake lens are awesome , very pocketable and the price seems acceptable if it's US$200 , i will get one even it's just F2.8....


----------



## mws (Jun 7, 2012)

Lot of people questioning the focal length and speed (myself included) but after thinking about this a little more, at the possible price of sub 200, you can't really go wrong.


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 7, 2012)

Complaining about the speed is a little stupid I think because I don't see a 'L' on that lens. Nor a few lbs of glass


----------



## PHYSICA (Jun 7, 2012)

mws said:


> Lot of people questioning the focal length and speed (myself included) but after thinking about this a little more, at the possible price of sub 200, you can't really go wrong.



yes , it must have some payload……wanna a small pancake lens, either one of them must be not promising………closest focusing dist., F-Stop, Cost………$200 for a very tiny , pocketable lens , I think F-Stop's problem is not really big deal………for those which really concern about the F-Stop , please go for the (reletively) bulky L lens of 50.2 and forget this lens please.

The only concern is..... is the closest focusing distance will be too far which is similar with the situation of G1X........I think we'll know the answer while the full spec. announced…


----------



## EchoLocation (Jun 7, 2012)

What is up with all these 2.8 primes? I don't care how small this lens is, it won't make my 5D any smaller. 
F2.8 is a huge waste of money. I want a 24mm 1.8(or 1.4/1.2!) and I might be interested in a similarly fast 28 or 35mm, but I have absolutely no use for a 2.8 aperture lens at these focal lengths. I'd much rather just save my money for the 24-70. Why can't Canon make an updated affordable(under 800 dollars) prime that is faster than 2.8? These new 24 and 28mm 2.8's are almost offensively priced at around 700-800 dollars, and this lens is cool, but just not cool enough.
If I want something smaller i'll buy a 4/3.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 7, 2012)

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount. 

Does anyone believe so also?


----------



## Tainted (Jun 7, 2012)

I'll almost certainly be selling my voigtlander 40mm pancake to buy one of these. I'll lose a stop of light gathering, but will make it up with autofocus and an even smaller footprint. The AF is kind of key for 5D Mark III owners since we can't use an Eg-S focusing screen like we could on the Mark II. Sure you can use focus confirmation still with the Ultron, but given the new precision of the 5D3 focusing, count me in for this puppy!

Also, I'm surprised by people's lack of enthusiasm for this lens. The 40mm focal length on FF makes for an absolutely perfect normal walkaround lens. and the size can help turn a 5D into a stealth street shooting machine (especially when combined with silent shutter and a little gaffer tape over the logos). You'll be able to slip your 5D into a jacket pocket, amazing!

If it's truly under $200 (I'm skeptical), it's an absolute no brainer.


----------



## PHYSICA (Jun 7, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> What is up with all these 2.8 primes? I don't care how small this lens is, it won't make my 5D any smaller.
> F2.8 is a huge waste of money. I want a 24mm 1.8(or 1.4/1.2!) and I might be interested in a similarly fast 28 or 35mm, but I have absolutely no use for a 2.8 aperture lens at these focal lengths. I'd much rather just save my money for the 24-70. Why can't Canon make an updated affordable(under 800 dollars) prime that is faster than 2.8? These new 24 and 28mm 2.8's are almost offensively priced at around 700-800 dollars, and this lens is cool, but just not cool enough.
> If I want something smaller i'll buy a 4/3.



if you wanna a fast 24mm prime , please go for the 24L. I don't think canon will made a 24 F1.8 which is just a little bit slower but will be cheap a lot. Also I don't think canon will made a small prime lens which is small enough , fast enough and cheap enough. 

for those thich is concern the size , this lens is a very good lens. i had consider the ULTRON 40mm to be my walk around lens because of it's compact tiny size. but sometime , i need the AF ability as i need to take some shot stealthly and without holding the camera to the normal position. so finally i consider the 35 F2 to be my walk around lens during my working time(I'm not a photo journalist....) I unable to bring too much gear during my works time. my 7D + 35 F2 is just marginally acceptable for me..... This lens will be very nice for me to minimize the load for me 

So , for those concern the F-Stop , please forgive this lens and go for the L , faster lens with higher price and bulkier size.........


----------



## markd61 (Jun 7, 2012)

I guess not too many here remember the spate of pancake lenses that came out in the early 80's. Minolta and Pentax both brought out 45mm lenses that allowed them to offer extremely compact packages in 35mm SLRs.

I never owned the Minolta though I had it on my list (I really loved my 35).

As far as this lens goes, it is a very smart move by Canon in that it allows DSLR owners to carry a much more compact kit on their walking about forays, it affords newbies low cost entree into the land of the oft vaunted prime lens, and gives Canon breathing room while they finish up their mirrorless offering. 

I see at as a very attractive lens to add to my old 5D that makes it a lot more compact. Silent AF coupled with contrasty sharp IQ seems like a great formula. One more stop might be useful in some instances but high ISO is so good that 2.8 is scarcely a penalty. The price also reflects this modest design.

All in all a great potential all-rounder as opposed to some hyper-speed diva lens that weighs a ton, costs a bunch and makes you happy only at max apertures.


----------



## cycomachead (Jun 7, 2012)

I looks like a nice lens, but I can't see spending $200 to shave off an inch or less of my 50mm 1.8, and to lose a stop and a half? The 40mm would be a nicer length for a cropped sensor, but personally, I'd take better light gathering. The 50 1.8 is also a good performer especially at f2 - 2.2 (which is still a whole stop advantage...).


The only things that would make me really interested are: sub-$200 is really in the $150 range, and this thing is sharp at 2.8 and focuses quickly. It doesn't need to be 70-200 quick, just a decent bit faster than my 50 1.8. If it had USM, I'd be all over it. As it is, the metal mount is a definite bonus over my nifty fifty. I guess this also depends on the price of the current 50, because I got mine at a low point, for under $100, and now they can be in the $130 range, so difference isn't as big.


----------



## Nassen0f (Jun 7, 2012)

Im just happy its EF and not EF-S, bout time we got an cheap cheap lens (and the 50 1.8 doesnt count as its unusable at 1.8 )


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 7, 2012)

When you think about it, this on a 5D3 is an awesome travel / street combo.

It's tiny, I can have this attached to my backup camera instead of the socket cover and ditch the 50 1.2 (Which I rarely use but carry anyway). I could even use the double r strap now to carry two bodies. One with the 70-200 on and the 40mm 2.8 on the other. 40mm is better than 50mm too.


----------



## traveller (Jun 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.
> 
> Does anyone believe so also?



I've got a nasty suspicion that you might be on to something here... Despite most reviewers panning the new Pentax K-01 for having all the drawbacks of a mirrorless design with few of the size benefits, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon chose to follow them down this route to try and protect their investment in the EF mount. 

The other logical reason might be if Canon were planning to stun us all with a compact full frame model ('entry level'?). I can't see that a lens such as this would make any of the 5D series practically smaller compared to mounting 50mm prime. Of course, I could be underestimating the number of people who would buy this lens just because it looks "cool" or "cute" (choose you gender ;D).


----------



## noncho (Jun 7, 2012)

Looks nice, if it was f2 would be nice, but larger and expensive.

If wide open is with great image quality I'll probably go for it.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.
> 
> Does anyone believe so also?



Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

because *it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor* which will cost around 200 Euro
if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to *keep other dimensions small*.
if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:


----------



## Astro (Jun 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I take back me bashing the 40mm 2.8 lens for not being f/2.
> 
> It looks so awesome! Im already sold.



of course the look of a lens is more important then anything else...


----------



## trulandphoto (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



missitnoonan said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > missitnoonan said:
> ...



You answered your own question. [my emphasis added]


----------



## friedmud (Jun 7, 2012)

If it's cheap (like the 50 f1.8) and has good autofocus (unlike the 50 f1.8!), I'll probably pick one up to attach to my old XSi as a walkaround lens for my wife. The XSi is small and light... so she likes to use it with the 50 f1.8 which fits her small hands well... so this will be even better.


----------



## moreorless (Jun 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.
> 
> Does anyone believe so also?



The fact its come to light now just a few days before what looks to be a new Rebel release makes me think not, I wouldnt be supprized to see this offered as a kit lens with the 650D.

An EF mount mirrorless really only makes sense to be if its also possible to mount lenses with a very short backfocus distance this having much of there lenght inside the body cutting down the total package or as a very cheap entry level model at an xxxxD price(so allowing for a top line sensor with money saved on the lack of mirror instead.

My guess is the mirrorless will be very much inline with the NEX and m43 to start with, parhaps a bit cheaper than the former.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 7, 2012)

PHYSICA said:


> So , for those concern the F-Stop , please forgive this lens and go for the L , faster lens with higher price and bulkier size.........



I don't have the cash to buy L, nor do I see the benefit of f/2.8 primes over the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM for FF or EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for APS-C.

I agree with preppyak - if f/2.8 is the standard for new non-L primes, sales would drop to the floor.


----------



## traveller (Jun 7, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.
> ...



Can you explain how the camera in your 'artist's' impression offer any advantages over a DSLR? It looks like a Canon version of the Pentax K-01, a camera that seems to spectacularly miss the whole point of mirrorless cameras by having all their deficiencies (poor AF, no viewfinder) without their biggest advantage -size: 

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,34
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,326
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,99

[Note: I think that the Canon 'Rebels' could be slimmed down in size quite a bit, which is why I included a link to the Sony A37] 

Once you've made a camera that's too big to easily fit in a pocket, you might as well go the whole hog and give it a mirror for phase detect AF and a decent viewfinder.


----------



## BXL (Jun 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i still cant see the point of all these f2.8 primes coming out


There have been f/2.8 primes before, like the "old" 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8. I own the 28mm since ages and it is a decent lens. Now those two lenses got replaced by new versions with IS, USM and maybe/hopefully even have a better image quality. If this is the case, at least I would consider to buy the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM.

Regarding the pancake, it's defiantly a nice looking lens. It has a metal bayonet and the finish looks and it fancies a high quality look than the faster nifty fifty. If the image quality image quality surpasses my tammy and the nifty fifty it is worth a try.


----------



## BXL (Jun 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.
> 
> Does anyone believe so also?


I do... why?

First of all, right from the start of such a mirror less camera, there a tons of lenses available. The Nikon 1 system only got 4 lenses so far. The second reason is that most people think twice before investing in a new system. Having invested into the EF-System, there is less hesitation to buy a mirror less body to accompany and even backup the more professional equipment. And last but not least, an APS-C or even FF mirror less system is something to differentiate Canon from the competition... and to succeed in the market, Canon needs something to separate them from Nikon, mFT etc.


----------



## Inwardlens (Jun 7, 2012)

I am really confused by the number of people complaining about how *slow* this lens is.

When did f2.8 become slow? Sure I love my 35mm f1.4, and the 50mm f1.2, but they don't get used nearly as much as the 24-70 f2.8 -- that is a workhorse along side the 70-200mm f2.8.

For under 200 dollars, an f2.8 lens is a bargain if it is decently sharp.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 7, 2012)

Inwardlens said:


> When did f2.8 become slow?



When you could get f/2.8 zooms.

I only buy primes for one of two things (and I have four of them) - speed or focal lengths unavailable in any zoom. This lens meets neither criteria.

I don't like small lenses - they give you no place to hold the camera. I like holding my camera with my left hand under the lens. My 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 were too small. My 35/1.4L is borderline but okay.


----------



## BXL (Jun 7, 2012)

pwp said:


> Photographers who _need _f/1.4 lenses to suit their shooting style will have to do what they've always done, pay the necessary dollars for those sweet, premium L primes.


Even though I tend to agree with your comment, I like to point out that both the 28mm f/1.8 USM and the 50mm f/1.4 USM are cheaper than the new F/2.8 IS USM primes and I can't believe that adding an image stabilizer can be so expensive.

On the other side, the build quality of the pancake looks much nicer than the nifty fifty, thus trading aperture for build quality might be ok for most people.


----------



## missitnoonan (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't understand why people think the EF system would be suitable for a mirrorless camera. The flange back distance is huge compared to Sony's E Mount or micro 4/3. And as traveller said that equals a thick non pocketable camera and I've already got one of those (my T1i). 

I'm really disappointed in the direction Canon seems to be taking with non-L primes. Can't we just have ring USM updates of the 35 f/2, the 50 f1.8 and the like? No, we've got to add IS to slower, short focal length primes and jack the price to $800. 

Again, I guess if someone wants a tiny lens for FF the 40mm makes some sense, but for crop? No thanks.


----------



## BXL (Jun 7, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Inwardlens said:
> 
> 
> > When did f2.8 become slow?
> ...


Most zooms never have the image quality of a prime. There a many situations, where I would trade the flexibility of a zoom, like the 17-50/55mm or the 24-70mm, for the image quality of a prime. A prime that is sharp open is better than a zoom, where you have to stop down a stop or two to get the desired image quality.


----------



## Inwardlens (Jun 7, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> I don't like small lenses - they give you no place to hold the camera. I like holding my camera with my left hand under the lens. My 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 were too small. My 35/1.4L is borderline but okay.



Now this is a real reason to dislike this lens.

I do still think that for the price this would be a nice lens to throw into the camera bag as a backup in case something catastrophic happens in during a job. If Canon does actually announce a mirrorless body, this lens may pair well.


----------



## pulsiv (Jun 7, 2012)

I have no doubts, this thingy will sell like bread... Its cheap... and its focal length is rather unusual for a canon lens. thats what will encourage most people to buy it. there is no real reason (exept the obvious one: size), to buy this one... since there is a 35 f2 and a 50 1.8 ... but people will buy that new toy... simply because it is the new toy... and because its so cheap, they will think it won't hurt to try it... 

it won't be a great lens... but it is in fact a great idea by canon.  not meeting demands, but creating them.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 7, 2012)

markd61 said:


> As far as this lens goes, it is a very smart move by Canon in that it allows DSLR owners to carry a much more compact kit on their walking about forays, it affords newbies low cost entree into the land of the oft vaunted prime lens, and gives Canon breathing room while they finish up their mirrorless offering.


Comparing this, with theoretical dimensions, to the 35mm f/2, at most it will save a few oz's and about a 3/4" in lens length. The 35 f/2 is 1.7" long and weighs 7oz, the 50 f/1.8 is 1.5" long and weights 4.5oz, and the 28mm f/2,8 is in between those at 1.6" and 6oz. So Canon already has 3 lenses around that focal length that are light and small. And one that gathers an extra stop of light at a cheaper price.

Always good to have options, but, it's not like this pancake is solving a problem Canon had. A DSLR in general is not "pocketable" like a mirrorless with pancake could be; and no lens will make it that way. And few, if any, of Canon's cheap primes way more than 1/2lb, so weight was never an issue either. Not for a 2+lb DSLR at least


----------



## William Sommerwerck (Jun 7, 2012)

Pentax made the first pancake lens, I think. Olympus had a 40/2, which I bought for my OM-4T. I tried putting camera-_cum_-lens in the inner pocket of a suit jacket, but it was a bit too thick to fit.

Pancake lenses "make sense" only on small camera bodies. Ergo, Canon must be planning a compact, mirrorless camera. I agree that f/2.8 is "skimpy", especially when you're trying to reduce the depth of field.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jun 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i still cant see the point of all these f2.8 primes coming out


Seriously. I don't get what Canon is doing with the lenses. We have had multiple lens announcements this year and all of them have been disappointing for multiple reasons. The 35mm f/2 is already very small and light. I would have definitely preferred that they just improve that...maybe make it an f/1.8. I have yet EVER to hear someone with a DSLR complain that the 35mm f/2 was too big/heavy. You would think in 22 years (the 35 f/2 came out in 1990!!!) they could have just improved the 35 f/2 and made it sharper, with faster focusing, and maybe a pinch smaller though I doubt anyone cares about that. Who the crap is approving these Canon lens choices.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 7, 2012)

traveller said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Yes, I can ... my rough sketch depicts a camera which can be stowed into a photo back pack or bag in some lens compartment. That is not possible with a 40D and I think it might be a problem with a 6xxD.

The missing mirror box helps to to implement a ring control around the lens base.

Removing the mirror box means space for electronics/sensor heat spreaders and gives room for a large capacity battery like the one for the 5D ii+ or 7D. This helps for video applications where battery capacity is essential.

Best - Michael


----------



## markd61 (Jun 7, 2012)

preppyak said:


> .


Comparing this, with theoretical dimensions, to the 35mm f/2, at most it will save a few oz's and about a 3/4" in lens length.
[/quote]

It is a significant difference in percentage terms. Whether it makes a difference in the handling is a subjective decision. I still believe they have already achieved their aims of stirring up interest in pancakes and this discussion has already opened many to the possible advantages of a small, medium speed, modern design, prime lens.
I believe they will sell a ton and if its performance is notable it may become an iconic member of the lineup.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 7, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...


Your sketch shows the mirror box sticks out even more than the handle Which is not the case for ALL Canon DSLR. All you have done is just remove the penta prism in the expense of a good eye level view finder and fast AF that we are enjoying now on the DSLR. I can fit 2 DSLR bodies (40D and 20D)and 3 lenses in a Nova 4 bag.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 7, 2012)

Rocky said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



It is meant as a rough sketch (perhaps my last one if it disturbs so much) - and thanks for the hint: The camera can be even smaller.

I cannot put 2 bodies (40D with 400mm and 100mm macro) into a mini trekker with lenses attached and access both cameras without hassles. Additionally I was speaking about a tertiary body.

Besides that: Perhaps I am satisfied with a TFT and don't need an eye level view finder for each camera ... please respect my dreams and my potential applications of such a camera ...  - Michael


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 7, 2012)

Why is everyone complaining about this lens? It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap. When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either. So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it? 

It's obviously an entry-level lens, and it's $200 for crying out loud, what do you expect? And just because it's an odd focal length to you doesn't mean that others won't find it useful, a good photographer can produce good images with any focal length.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 7, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Why is everyone complaining about this lens? It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap. When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either. So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it?
> 
> It's obviously an entry-level lens, and it's $200 for crying out loud, what do you expect? And just because it's an odd focal length to you doesn't mean that others won't find it useful, a good photographer can produce good images with any focal length.



Thanks for your lines - some participants of this forum do not understand (IMHO) that many companies produce many tools for the vast crowd of photographers.

Besides: 40mm is not too odd - it is THE standard focal length for FF!


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Why is everyone complaining about this lens? It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap. When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either. So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it?
> ...



Nobody NEEDS a 40mm FF EF lens as a pancake. 

Many of us are mad at Canon, because they are WASTING research & manufacturing capacity on "nice to have" products rather than on delivering the essentials: "fully competitive, bleeding edge" cameras and lenses and true INNOVATION. A FF pancake would make a lot of sense with a killer FF-mirrorless Canon camera as compact as a mMinolta CLE. THAT would be innovative and welcome. An EF 40mm -f/2.8 pancake is ... YAWN. 

And if Canon's geriatric management squelches any true innovation, than at least develop any of the following ASAP:
* 50/1.4 Mk. II - with improved optical performance matching if not surpassing the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 and Sigma ... and most importantly with Hi-grade RING USM AF
* 35/2 Mk. II - with massively improved optical performance and Ring-USM AF
* 28/1.8 Mk. II - with massively improved optical performance
* 24-70 Mk. III with f*cking 4-EV IS
And all of us want lens shades included with every Canon lens, not only with L's.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 7, 2012)

Canon, making products no one wants but everyone buys. lol.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jun 7, 2012)

We already know it is cheap, compact, has a metal mount, updated focusing motor.... and if it happens to have great optics & nice and sharp at f/2.8... what is the problem?

I'm always looking for an excuse to buy a new lens to play around with, and at this price, it's play.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 7, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Axilrod said:
> ...



You have made the decision that _nobody_ needs a 40mm pancake?

No one of us has seen that lens, knows about it's capabilities, has used it.

I see a very good lens in terms of IQ (IMO last lens element is aspherical), i see an advantage in a pancake as a space saver - sometimes 20mm or 30mm count if you want to have your camera with you.

You don't buy that lens, I probably buy it. No reasoning about "who needs what" is necessary.

Best - Michael


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jun 7, 2012)

In the end one can trace back almost all the recent drama in these forums to the little, quite insignificant detail that the 5D3 is more expensive than the D800.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 7, 2012)

40mm f2.8 was the universal lens for the FF point and shoot cameras in the OLD film days. It must be the right lens, otherwise why every body is using it??? All I see is mostly complain on this forum. Not fast enough: bump up the ISO PLEASE. Not wide enough: get another wide angle lens. It is just another lens in your collection. If you do not like it, don't buy it. My only complain is that Canon should have made a 30mm f2.8 for the APS-C sensor before this lens. It will be a lot more useful.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 8, 2012)

Inwardlens said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like small lenses - they give you no place to hold the camera. I like holding my camera with my left hand under the lens. My 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 were too small. My 35/1.4L is borderline but okay.
> ...



Glad you agree.

Ergonomics are as important to me as optical quality or AF performance. If it hurts to shoot with it hour after hour, then it's as useless as a lump of coal.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 8, 2012)

BXL said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Inwardlens said:
> ...



This era has long-since passed. I never, ever, choose a prime over a zoom because of optical performance. I choose them for speed or for having a focal length in which no zoom is available - like my 1900mm telescope and my 15mm fisheye (yes, I know about the 8-15 but that thing zooms in the wrong direction and it way, way overpriced, plus it's only f/4).


----------



## philbob10 (Jun 8, 2012)

I'll probably get it because it's cheap, it's going to perform well, and my 5D MKII will fit in the same space in my bag as the body alone. Throw it in my laptop bag, and I'll always have a good camera with me without it taking up twice as much space as it would with any other lens.


----------



## philbob10 (Jun 8, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Always good to have options, but, it's not like this pancake is solving a problem Canon had. A DSLR in general is not "pocketable" like a mirrorless with pancake could be; and no lens will make it that way. And few, if any, of Canon's cheap primes way more than 1/2lb, so weight was never an issue either. Not for a 2+lb DSLR at least



You forget that the 50mm f/1.8 is really noisy and horribly slow when it comes to AF. The 40mm is silent, more durable and will definitely focus better than the 50mm. The metal mount and body alone make the $70-90 difference worth it, if you don't need the extra stop.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake*



Haydn1971 said:


> Starting to look like f2.8 is going to be the standard minimum for non L primes....
> 
> This could mean two things, Canon pushing people into buying top end primes for anything less, or alternatively realignment of the ranges to have f2.8 "cheap" primes, entry level L primes and moving the current top range primes up the price list.



Now we know the real story is that the 40mm is for video shooters. I think this technology, with full time AF in LiveView, with create a flurry of simillar lens. May go some way to explain why the shorter primes have not been updated recently.

So perhaps a 85mm f/2.8 is in the pipeline to replace the 85 f/1.8?


----------



## charleswagoner (Jun 8, 2012)

Good lord, are you people spending all your time shooting in a closet?

Waaaaaaaaaa!! Only f/2.8. Waaaaaaaaaa!! Canon needs to base all their market research, product development, and release cycles on my every whim! Waaaaaaaaaa!!

First, Canon announces this lens. You see no use for it in your personal contexts. Get over it and don't take it so personally. This is not the last lens that Canon will ever release. Just because they haven't updated your personal favorite, doesn't mean they never will. Seriously, STFU.

Second, by now it should be clear that anything wider than f/2.8 has to have some L-level build quality if you want great image quality. My 50mm 1.4 is great, but I only take it below f/2.8 either in extremely low light, which is rare, or if I purposely want very, very shallow DoF. Also rare. I know that not everyone's personal situation is exactly like my own, but good lord, aperture is not the be-all end-all. At $200 you're getting STM, FTM, decent build quality, AND round aperture rings. 

Seriously, if you don't want it, don't f------ing buy it. It's not a difficult concept. Nobody really cares about your personal misgivings with Canon's release cycles and the direction they're taking with their products. The technology is getting better all the time, and we've no reason to believe that this lens will suck at what it does.


----------



## Vossie (Jun 8, 2012)

charleswagoner said:


> First, Canon announces this lens. You see no use for it in your personal contexts. Get over it and don't take it so personally. This is not the last lens that Canon will ever release. Just because they haven't updated your personal favorite, doesn't mean they never will. Seriously, STFU.



 I tend to agree, nobody is obliged to buy it. So if you look for a faster lens with better IQ you may want to leave this one in the store....


----------



## pdirestajr (Jun 8, 2012)

The fact that it is EF and not EF-s means that more things are coming.

Perhaps the FF mirrorless that everyone fantasizes over?

For the life of me, I still don't understand why the EOS-1c has a mirror when it is part of the "Cinema" series. What good is that mirror and prism?


----------



## chimpmitten (Jun 8, 2012)

I had no interest in this lens, until I started reading all of the complaints about it. ;D

I am planning on getting a 5d iii once I have the money in place (kitchen remodels do not coincide well with upgrading camera equipment) and was looking for a standard ff focal length lens to go with it. 

The 50 1.2 is out of my price range, and I don't like the plastic mount of the 50 1.8. The 50 1.4 looked to be the way to go, but this at a cheaper price and similar build might be better for me. The tiny size means I'd be able to put a body with lens into my work bag or even the handle bar bag on my bicycle. The 40 mm would probably work well cropped on my 50d, and I don't think I'll miss the faster lens since I already have the 28mm and 85mm 1.8 lenses. 

Also it will look ridiculous with the 40mm pancake on one body and my 70-200m ii on the another. 

Although I'd probably stick with the 28mm in that setup since the cropped 40mm would be pretty close to 70mm on the 5d. Maybe if I end up with an extender for the 70-200 as well...


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 8, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> In the end one can trace back almost all the recent drama in these forums to the little, quite insignificant detail that the 5D3 is more expensive than the D800.



Lol or the DxO numbers.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 9, 2012)

I'll trade anyone here my 35 f/2 for one.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 27, 2012)

after the good review on lensrentals.com the shorty 40 tests very well on german review site http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/752-canon_40_28_ff 

MTF: center outstanding, corners very good - even wide open at f/2.8 
distortions and loCAs negligible
light falloff: 1.7EV @ f/2.8, 0.6Ev @ f/4
Bokeh very good, but not excellent
Price / value: very good
highly recommended


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 27, 2012)

chimpmitten said:


> The 50 1.4 looked to be the way to go, but this at a cheaper price and similar build might be better for me. The tiny size means I'd be able to put a body with lens into my work bag or even the handle bar bag on my bicycle.



I have had the 40mm now for about 3 days, really fun little lens but at 2.8 the 50 f/1.4 beats it pretty solidly, 50 f/1.4 also has nicer contrast. That all said I think I will keep it around, it makes my 5DM3 nicely portable and the quality certainly isn't bad, just doesn't hold up that well against the 50 f/1.4 which isn't THAT much bigger but is almost 2x the price. 

I have a few photos of it on my camera http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2012/06/40mm-stm-quick-review/ and I hope to rent a T4i in the next week or so and test the full time AF with STM - for those folks who are buying the T4i I think it is a no-brainer.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 27, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> chimpmitten said:
> 
> 
> > The 50 1.4 looked to be the way to go, but this at a cheaper price and similar build might be better for me. The tiny size means I'd be able to put a body with lens into my work bag or even the handle bar bag on my bicycle.
> ...



Lab tests are showing that the 40 is at least as good as the 50 f/1.4 - especially at f/4 and f/5.6 which is where the lens will be used most.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/752-canon_40_28_ff

The one thing is certain is that the 50 f/1.8 has been eclipsed.

A great little lens for the crop camera


----------



## DianeK (Jun 27, 2012)

I seem to have gotten a bad copy. Got it yesterday and was singularly unimpressed with sharpness so decided today to analyze with FoCal. Turns out it is backfocusing but inconsistently so it needs different AFMA's depending on shooting distance. Also, FoCal Pro will analyze for best aperature for sharpness. Turns out this one is best at f/11 if I am more than 6 ft from my subject, and f/4.5 if closer than 6 feet. It was not sharp wide open. So back to the store goes this one. 
Diane


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Jun 27, 2012)

i've only taken a total of 10 shots with mine, but so far i'm very happy with it. it is okay at 2.8 but by f4 gets very sharp. focus is tedious at 1ft from subject.. but thats just the nature of being that close. over all i'm happy with it. def faster and quieter than the 50mm f1.8. my 50mm f1.4 is in the shop (for the 4th time) for repairs. the 85mm f1.8 seems to focus faster, but its 2x the price. i think for the money its a great deal


----------



## nubu (Jun 28, 2012)

Maybe I missed something but when using it on the new 5d III with the newest firmware 1.1.3. but also in the newest dpp 3.11.31 there is no lens data available in order to correct vigneting and the rest. Hope that this is updated soon! (Aside this I love this lens!)


----------



## Zlatko (Jun 28, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Nobody NEEDS a 40mm FF EF lens as a pancake.
> 
> Many of us are mad at Canon, because they are WASTING research & manufacturing capacity on "nice to have" products rather than on delivering the essentials: "fully competitive, bleeding edge" cameras and lenses and true INNOVATION. A FF pancake would make a lot of sense with a killer FF-mirrorless Canon camera as compact as a mMinolta CLE. THAT would be innovative and welcome. An EF 40mm -f/2.8 pancake is ... YAWN.



Canon makes an incredible assortment of lenses in an extremely wide price range. Many of them are fully competitive and innovative. And yet people still find something to complain about. Of course there are some lenses that still need updating. With such a vast range of lenses, there always will be some that are becoming outdated. Eventually they'll get around to updating lenses like the 50/1.4 and 35/2, but they'll do it on their own schedule. Remember how long it took Nikon to update the 85/1.4, or how they were about 15 years behind Canon in introducing a 24/1.4.

This new 40/2.8 is turning out to be a wonderful lens. Canon should get a lot of credit for making something that is both good and cheap ... a rare combination. 40mm is actually closer to a standard lens for full-frame than either 35 or 50mm. It feels "just right" in a number of ways. For those who don't care for f/2.8 prime lenses, Canon makes a great selection f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses. I'm excited to have such a small lens as the 40/2.8.

The other thing about asking for "fully competitive, bleeding edge" products is that they are very costly, and whenever they are introduced, people complain about the high cost. The 40/2.8 is a great example of a lens that is useful, nice to have, affordable, high quality, and defiantly not bleeding edge. The beauty of such a large system is that there is something for almost everybody and for almost every budget.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jun 28, 2012)

I just got mine today! Heavier than I thought (it said 170gr. but felt heavier). Just gotten a few shots with it so far, but I like what I see. When I put it on my camera it made me think of the classic Bill Burnbach ad from 1964 when they introduced the original VW beetle in the states "It makes your house look bigger"






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canon 5D II w/grip, 17mm F4.0L TS, 16-35 F2.8L II, 50 F1.4, 70-200 F2.8L II, 24-105 F4.0L, 100 F2.8L HIS, 135 F2.0L, Sigma 85 F1.4, Tokina 17 F3.5, and now: 40 F2.8 STM.
Canon 430 EX II, 580 EX II, 600 EX RT


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 28, 2012)

I do agree with you, that the Canon 40 pancake delivers very nicely on price/value. I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes. Had Canon built it the size of a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 ... and we might have gotten an equally good and reasonably priced 40/1.8. 



Zlatko said:


> The other thing about asking for "fully competitive, bleeding edge" products is that they are very costly, and whenever they are introduced, people complain about the high cost.



Bleeding edge? Some examples for me are
* Nikon D800. Way better than the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3x at 40% of the price. Better than the 5D3 but $/€ 500 less. I have not heard Nikonians complain about the D800 price.
* Nikon AF-S 35/1.8. Excellent image quality. Small price. 
* Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 bleeding edge image quality. Very affordable. 
* Nikon 14-24 bleeding edge performance. Reasonable cost ... similar to the inferior Canon 16-35 II. 

Canon? Bleeding edge? Yes some: superteles, TS/E, 70-200/2.8, possibly the 24-70 II ... definitely all bleeding expensive. Wide angle lenses? Not one.


----------



## peederj (Jun 28, 2012)

I ended up ordering one after reading the test reports because I felt it would be nice and light and just wide enough for steadicam shots. I usually work steadicam very wide (because wider is inherently steadier) with 10-22 on a Rebel but I would like a 5d3 option and I need it to be as light as possible. Should be here todayish.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 28, 2012)

Sharper than I expected and yes I like it on both my FF and crop bodies. Lots of shots will be taken this weekend.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 28, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> I do agree with you, that the Canon 40 pancake delivers very nicely on price/value. I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes. Had Canon built it the size of a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 ... and we might have gotten an equally good and reasonably priced 40/1.8.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really, do you think any D800 owners would complain? Nikon should of had the price @$500 more. There probably wouldn't be any complaining even if the 800 was $500 more than the 5DIII.


----------



## Zlatko (Jun 28, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes.
> ....
> Bleeding edge? Some examples for me are
> * Nikon D800. Way better than the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3x at 40% of the price. Better than the 5D3 but $/€ 500 less. I have not heard Nikonians complain about the D800 price.
> ...


The reason for building as a pancake is obvious ... to have a pancake. That means: it's really small. Smallness by itself is a great value. It's small in the bag, small in the hand, small in use. I love small lenses (when I don't need a fast aperture, that is). Yes, I would love a 40/1.8 too, but you can't have a full frame f/1.8 lens that is _this_ small. 

For my purposes, the 5D3 is much better than the D800 and well worth the extra cost. I grant that for others, the D800 will be better. But I really don't need Canon to build cameras to match specific Nikon models.

The Nikon 35/1.8 and 14-24 don't have exact Canon equivalents ... yet. Perhaps they will one day; there's a rumor of a Canon 14-24 patent anyway. Nikon's 35/1.8 is excellent, but not full frame. Their 14-24 is excellent too, but not a lens I would find useful (or want to buy for $2K). The new 40/2.8 is actually much more useful for me, so I'm thrilled about it.

The point is, manufacturers don't follow the same lens roadmap. They each have different priorities at different times. That's to be expected. Remember how many years it took Nikon to introduce a 24/1.4 and a 35/1.4, or to build an updated 85/1.4 ... years. After Nikon cancelled their 28/1.4, years went by without a fast Nikon wide prime. I think the Canon 24/1.4 II is exquisitely good, and the 35/1.4 has been a workhorse for me for years, so I'm very happy with the fast Canon wides.

I think the bottom line is that whatever they build ... _someone will complain_. I mean *any* lens you can think of ... someone will complain that they didn't build another lens _instead_. Photographers have different needs at different times and, not surprisingly, no manufacturer's product release schedules will exactly match our personal needs.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 28, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> * Nikon D800. Way better than the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3x at 40% of the price. Better than the 5D3 but $/€ 500 less. I have not heard Nikonians complain about the D800 price.


Better is very subjective, it's only better if it does what you want it to do and if you need the features where it is "better". There are many factors involved in purchasing photography equipment, many more when it comes to shot selection and the actual act of photographing. Whatever gear you have, you are making a compromise somewhere, it's a case of knowing whether that compromise is going to have a detrimental effect on what you want to achieve.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 28, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I still do not see a reason for an EF lens to be built as a pancake though. Other than triggering "oh is this cute" reflexes.
> ...



You are (mainly) using Canon FF DSLRs ... right? Does it really make a practical difference whether a lens is as compact and light as a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 or another 12mm shorter ... as the pancake 40? Sorry, but I just fail to that as a real advantage. 

NOW, if the shorty 40 were not an EF lens, but an FF lens for a great Canon FF mirrorless system camera with the same price/value ratio  ... THAT would make a whole lotta sense. Actually it would be something I'd consider "truly bleeding edge" in 2012.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 28, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



For street photos a small inocuous lens is easier to use than a large white on as it makes you more 'invisible' So a shorty forty is good for street work. A 40 on ff is nearly wa, a 40 on a 1.6 is a standard lens. As for bleeding edge - well I think old and trusted works well too especially for not looking the rich tourist.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 28, 2012)

On a 40mm, would f/2 really make a significant difference to the amount of blur ayway? I doubt the difference would be enough to compensate for the significant extra weight. It would also make the design more complex, making it more difficult to design it as sharp or as flare resitant as it seems to be from all the comments. Simple compositions are often the best and the same holds true for lens designs, why do you think classic lenses are so sought after? Also, who is to say that there isn't going to be a full frame mirrorless in the near future?


----------



## RichATL (Jun 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> For street photos a small inocuous lens is easier to use than a large white on as it makes you more 'invisible' So a shorty forty is good for street work. A 40 on ff is nearly wa, a 40 on a 1.6 is a standard lens.



40mm is not "wide angle" in the traditional sense...
Scientifically (physics) speaking... 43mm gives the same angle of view as the human eye...
so.. it's actually closer to "normal" than a 50mm
While technically speaking it is "wider" than the 43mm true normal... it's not what you should call "wide angle"
...
If you call it wide angle... might as well call it telephoto on a 1.6 sensor...being a 64mm equivalent.

Had there not been any 50mm canon lenses produced... the 40mm would be known as the "normal" lens...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 28, 2012)

RichATL said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > For street photos a small inocuous lens is easier to use than a large white on as it makes you more 'invisible' So a shorty forty is good for street work. A 40 on ff is nearly wa, a 40 on a 1.6 is a standard lens.
> ...



I always think of a 35mm as a wa - and a 85mm as normal with a 135 as short telephoto and 300+ as a long telephoto.

I would guess I link it to the type of photo I am taking.

A 50mm headshot doesn't look natural to me as the nose gets prominence

We all have our little ways 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Zlatko (Jun 28, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> You are (mainly) using Canon FF DSLRs ... right? Does it really make a practical difference whether a lens is as compact and light as a 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 or another 12mm shorter ... as the pancake 40? Sorry, but I just fail to that as a real advantage.
> 
> NOW, if the shorty 40 were not an EF lens, but an FF lens for a great Canon FF mirrorless system camera with the same price/value ratio  ... THAT would make a whole lotta sense. Actually it would be something I'd consider "truly bleeding edge" in 2012.



Yes, I mainly use full frame, but also crop. I think each has its place. Yes, the practical difference in size is very small. I agree that the 35/2 and 50/1.8 are not much bigger, but I'm still very happy that the 40/2.8 is so small. Of course, I also wish for an updated, high-quality, quiet-focusing 35/2 and 50/1.8. I think those lenses will come too; it's just a matter of time. The fact that they chose to introduce a new 40/2.8 this year, and left the 35/2 and 50/1.8 for another year doesn't bother me too much. We can't have everything we want when we want it.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Canon mirrorless system, whether full-frame, APS-C or whatever. There are a number of ways they could make it great, and a number of ways they could make it fail. I hope they make it great. A big advantage of a mirrorless system is that the camera bodies will be smaller. To some degree, a pancake lens serves the purpose of reducing the size of the camera+lens package (if only the lens part of the equation), so it actually fulfills some of what I would want from a mirrorless system. If Canon made a set of high-quality, small, fast-focusing & quiet-focusing primes (including a new 35/2 and 50/1.8 ) for their full-frame DSLRs, I would probably buy those and lose interest in a mirrorless system.


----------



## peederj (Jun 29, 2012)

...and it's here.

And it sucks.

Don't ge me wrong, the IQ is very good, and it can get in close (though not what I'd call macro). And it's charmingly cute little thing.

It's the focusing system that sucks. First off, I thought this was supposed to be a "silent motor" for video AF. This is anything but silent...sounds like an inkjet printer printing off a line as it moves into place. The AF is the slowest of any lens in my 16+ lens EF collection...even slower than the old Rebel kit lenses. It doesn't "chuk" into place like many other lenses, it just runs into place as if an inkjet printer motor was pushing it there...so perhaps in peak loudness it is quieter, but this nnnnnnnnh noise is far more annoying to me at least.

Also, I could not stand the focus-by-wire approach. I felt way out of control of my focus...I pull focus manually all the time for video, and my haptic skills fell useless upon this toy. It becomes a matter of timing rather than touch, which utterly and unforgivably sucks.

If this is the wave of the future, I'm buying up this era's better lenses so I don't have to wallow in such dreck. Sorry.

The IQ is very nice and the thing is small and lightweight.

I'm wondering if I send it back...it is cheap enough, small enough, unique enough to just squeeze out a little spot in my Pelikan. I guess I will take some sample shots on the 5d3 and rebels and see if I can manage.

But really I can't stand how it focuses, auto or manual. After this experience I'm definitely not even thinking of going MFT or other focus-by-wire mirrorless. Maybe Canon did this as a way of assuring pro loyalty to traditional SLR's and lenses.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

peederj said:


> ...and it's here.
> 
> And it sucks.
> 
> ...



this might focus faster then 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/712-voigtlander40f2ff?start=1


----------



## peederj (Jun 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > ...and it's here.
> ...



I was vaguely tmepted by that lens and its 20 version but I felt the price/performance was off. But I am not hesitant to go manual-only with a lens.

Manually focusing on this thing sounds like squeezing a hamster. I mean, silly sounding. I wonder if my copy is louder than others, but I doubt it. 

The fact there is no focus indicator to be found, anywhere, makes this poor for shoot-from-the-hip street photography. I guess you could gauge from how far out the front pokes (the front pokes out as it focuses out toward infinity) but there is no marking there on the barrel either. Maybe I could etch markings there? It's cheap enough no one would care.

I think the motor will blow out after a decade or so and all these focus-by-wire lenses will be garbage. The manual-only primes will still be appreciated. This is cheap because no one would view it as an investment.

The IQ is very good though. Why gum up a good lens with electronica? I am not a luddite, I favor good innovations, and this ain't. But it is cheap and small.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

i just got the 20mm gonna play with it today and over the weekend MF is actually very snappy with the AF confirm definately seems faster than hamster squeezing, aperture control is all done in camera on the canon versions too which is sweet


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 29, 2012)

peederj said:


> It's the focusing system that sucks. First off, I thought this was supposed to be a "silent motor" for video AF. This is anything but silent...sounds like an inkjet printer printing off a line as it moves into place. The AF is the slowest of any lens in my 16+ lens EF collection...even slower than the old Rebel kit lenses. It doesn't "chuk" into place like many other lenses, it just runs into place as if an inkjet printer motor was pushing it there...so perhaps in peak loudness it is quieter, but this nnnnnnnnh noise is far more annoying to me at least.
> 
> Also, I could not stand the focus-by-wire approach. I felt way out of control of my focus...I pull focus manually all the time for video, and my haptic skills fell useless upon this toy. It becomes a matter of timing rather than touch, which utterly and unforgivably sucks.



ouch! 

Did Canon not write something in their hyped-language press-release to the effect this weirdo STM motor AF drive was especially "suitable to video capture" because it is supposed to be so "near silent"?

If it is noisy, would this not be an even bigger spoiler to video than the focus limitations in manual focus? 

I believe they just chose this STM because it was 10 cents cheaper to source than a proper Ring-USM AF drive. And they expect to and will actually sell millions of this thing ... because it is "oh so cute".


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 29, 2012)

It is quiet but not silent. It is more accurate than the 50 f/1.4 and doesn't do the minor adjustments - it just rolls up to the focus point and stopn - perfect for AF in video where AF jiggling is very irritating


----------



## thebowtie (Jun 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> It is quiet but not silent. It is more accurate than the 50 f/1.4 and doesn't do the minor adjustments - it just rolls up to the focus point and stopn - perfect for AF in video where AF jiggling is very irritating


I'm pretty sure the claim for "silent focus, good for video use" is qualified ONLY for the EOS 650 / T4i - since half of the 'quiet' autofocus technology is embedded in that camera body - and it's the combination of that camera body's CD/PD autofocus capability, the firmware and the STM lens that makes it silent.
At least, that's what the marketecture says..


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> It is quiet but not silent. It is more accurate than the 50 f/1.4 and doesn't do the minor adjustments - it just rolls up to the focus point and stopn - perfect for AF in video where AF jiggling is very irritating


The 50 1.4 is no good comparison because its got a weirdo af as well. USM but Not really. That is One of The Reasons why i Would have preferred to get a 50 1.4 mk. II First. With proper fast and totally silent Ring USM. Same as in Day The 85 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 ... Canon Knows how to make These.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 29, 2012)

It was relevant to me as the 50mm was the one it was going to replace. The 50 f/1.8 has poor bokeh so the other one was the f/1.4

Still better a comparison that you can relate to than none at all

No good comparing it to my 200 was it ???


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> It was relevant to me as the 50mm was the one it was going to replace. The 50 f/1.8 has poor bokeh so the other one was the f/1.4



a 40/2.8 can in no way replace a 50/1.4. There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake. But there still is an urgent need for an improved 50/1.4 II and an improved 50/1.8 II and an improved 35/2.0. All of them need 8-9 nicely rounded aperture blades, all of them need super-spectrum coating, all of them need true Ring-USM with FTM - ultrafast and totally silent - rather than the weirdo and cheapo new STM-AF drive. All of them could also use a newly developed optical formula and glass to achieve better MTFs. 

What does Canon do? Come up with an unneeded, bleedingly expensive 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and a 40/2.8 pancake - which at least is optically good, cheap and cute looking. ALl of these are "nice to have" in Canon's large lens-lineup, but none of them had any priority at all, whereas the 50 and 35 are in urgent need of an upgrade. 

That's all I am saying.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 30, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> a 40/2.8 can in no way replace a 50/1.4.



It most certainly can, depending on what you're using the lens for.

If you got the 50 for its field of view and image quality but wished your DSLR was more unobtrusive, the 40 is the perfect lens for you. Of course, if you got the 50 for its low light capabilities and razor-thin depth of field, the 40 isn't going to replace it any time soon.

A 5DIII with a Shorty McForty looks like a high-end P&S, especially if you do the Live View thing and hold it at arm's length and turn on all the obnoxious beeping noises.

A 5DIII with a 50 f/1.4 looks like a "serious" "real" "pro" camera.

The one makes you look like a regular person, maybe a bit more into snapshots or with a bit more disposable income than average, but not out of the ordinary. The other has a completely different vibe and instantly turns you into a photographer, somebody whom people are going to notice as soon as you start snapping away. "Paparazzi," they'll think, not just somebody else in the crowd taking snapshots.



> There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.



Funny. If that were the case, then why is it doing so well in the market?

b&


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 30, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> > There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.
> 
> 
> Funny. If that were the case, then why is it doing so well in the market?



Because it is "cheap", optically good and most of all "oh so cute". 
An equally improved 50/1.4 II at 399 or a 35/2.0 at 299 would also do very well. And an improved 50/1.8 II for 199 with improved IQ, 8 rounded aperture blades, Ring-USM, and metal mount. 

Other than that: a 5D 1/2/3 shooter never looks like a P&S snapshooter, no matter what lens is attached. The body alone is too fat for that. 
And it would be very difficult to take good photos holding a 5D 1/2/3 at arms length in live view. The body alone is too heavy for that.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jun 30, 2012)

The 40mm for one...is a very handy little lens to bring around as a "spare"
For example, when i went to the zoo for an outing, i only had a tele lens attached to my camera.
I didn't bring a bag or any other lenses/attachments etc..just the camera and a strap.
In instances where a tele lens is too "zoomed" where i wanted a wider view, i had the 40mm in my pocket..
It is zoo small and light, it just felt like having another phone in the pocket to it was good to have around..

In situations like this and with many others i can think of, this is what i see the 40mm pancake being great for.


----------



## peederj (Jun 30, 2012)

Annnnhh well I ended up keeping it. :

It's half the size of the 50/1.4 and the corner quality at 2.8 on the 5D3 is just a hair better than the 50/1.4. But the IQ is better on the 50 center I think and I of course much prefer the focus even though that's not a great focus system either. 

Maybe practicing with this focus by wire will prepare me if I'm ever on a GH2 video shoot for whatever reason. I dislike it. I shoot all-manual most of the time, I was raised on manual SLRs of the 80's, I think an SLR should feel like control, not a P&S. This makes the SLR feel like a P&S but with no zoom ability. But the focus is like zooming a cheap camcorder with toggley buttons.

Cheap and cheerful as they say. The pictures really are quite nice, on FF it's a good look, lets you squeeze in a two-shot without making people too fat like a 35. But the 50/1.4 takes a better picture at 2.8 for my money. Corners aren't critical in my world.


----------



## PhotoCat (Jun 30, 2012)

just got my 40 2.8 with high expectation with color according to other reviews. Sadly the color and shadow detail is almost identical to my 50/1.8, compared with no filter on. I am keeping 50/1.8 & returning the 40 2.8.
Canon really needs to upgrade 50/1.4 due to motor stuck problem...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 30, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > It was relevant to me as the 50mm was the one it was going to replace. The 50 f/1.8 has poor bokeh so the other one was the f/1.4
> ...



Let me say it again. My pancake was going to replace my 50 f/1.4. I dont shoot wide open with the f/1.4 because of the shallow DOF so I dont give a toss about it 'only' being f/2.8

I dont give a toss about the Canon range. I dont give a toss whether it is silent. I just reported it as I found it. 

If you dont like it then dont buy it - but a lot of people will buy it as it represents a lot of bang for the buck. The argument for APS-C has been cheapness including cheap lens. Well Canon listened and have produced a cheap full frame lens - ready for the cheap FF methinks

How have you found your pancake and the 24/28 IS? You have expressed such a strong anti opinion I can only assume your experience is not very good - or were you just disappointed that you weren't getting a 50 f/1.2 II FOR 50 F/1.8 PRICE.


----------



## Zlatko (Jun 30, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.
> ....
> What does Canon do? Come up with an unneeded, bleedingly expensive 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and a 40/2.8 pancake - which at least is optically good, cheap and cute looking. ALl of these are "nice to have" in Canon's large lens-lineup, but none of them had any priority at all, whereas the 50 and 35 are in urgent need of an upgrade.


It sounds like you're criticizing Canon for not meeting your own urgent need right now. I had an urgent need for a 40/2.8 pancake lens, so I am very excited about it. I love how it gives me a super-small lens option for shooting in day time. I love how it effectively "shrinks" my full-frame camera when traveling ... I now have much less need for a smaller camera body on trips. 

Looking at the huge assortment of 60 or so lenses in production, there are so many options that there is arguably nothing that needs an urgent upgrade. If they aren't upgrading the lens that you personally urgently need, it is because they are upgrading (or introducing) a lens that _someone else_ urgently needs. And when the time comes that they do upgrade the lens that you urgently need, it will mean that they are not upgrading a lens that someone else urgently needs. There's no way to please everybody.


----------



## Heavyweight67 (Jun 30, 2012)

Canon 40mm f2.8 STM Hands-on Review

Like him love him or hate him, here is his review.

I'm still not exactly sure if the 40mm is something I will buy, maybe when I have some loose change and need a new toy or maybe a stocking stuffer.

I have my 50 1.4 which is basically neglected, but a Sigma 85 is definitely on the cards..


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 30, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > > There was no need whatsoever in the market to develop a 40 pancake.
> ...


Canon, like any other successful business, try to bring to market, something that they think can fill a hole in that market. People have been asking for pancake lenses, Canon produced one, which is optically good, "cheap" and "oh so cute" and customers lapped it up. Therefore they did it right and the marketing department did their jobs. A 50mm is the sort of lens that people get, because it is "standard", so they think they ought to have one, but how many would actually replace the one they had (whichever version) if a new one came out? I bet it would be less than those buying the shorty forty.
The reality is, I doubt Canon had the 5D in mind (if in fact hey had any body in mind) when they came up with the concept. Those looking for AF in video, wouldn't be serious film makers in the main, but those wanting to shoot a bit of home movie, the shorty forty is ideal for that I imagine, if on the 650D, plus they mostly wouldn't be interested in manual focusing (the focus ring looks a bit small). Also, it would be very unobtrusive and look like an expensive P&S on the xxxD line.


----------



## Dave T (Jul 8, 2012)

I just got one and like it so far. It will be my version of a "standard" until something better (than the confusing array of Cannon 50mm choices) comes along. Saw a rumor on another forum about a 42mm f/1.0 L. Now that was a cool idea. Wish that was more than a made up rumor.

Dave


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2012)

I'm still not sure why I would use this lens? I have a 50L and a 50 f1.8 mkI...If I wanted an f2.8 lens, I'd use my 24-70L...who cares about size and weight? A 5DIII and a 24-70L would spank this pancake for versatility any day.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 9, 2012)

i just got mine today, got a few test shots, so far looks really nice
gotta get some more shots
I think i'm gonna use this lens a bit in studio where i find the 50 can be a bit tight
and shooting at f11 or so i think its gonna be a little weapon
gonna try it with an IR filter on tomorrow see if it hot spots or not


----------



## ippikiokami (Jul 9, 2012)

Love this lens. I find it hard to take any of my other lenses out with me now since I got it.

Portability is AMAZING. The weight is great but the size is on another level. I'm able to stick my 5d III with a spare flash in bags I couldn't even think about before.


----------



## suburbia (Jul 9, 2012)

I've had mine lock up on me twice now, just wont respond to focus requests from camera, not seen it happen on any other lens. Both times this has happened in dusk/evening conditions and at first I thought it might be the low light but focus still failed even if pointing at lights and high contrast areas. In both cases only a remount of the lens fixed the issue.

Looking back Im wondering if the lens got wet but the weather wasn't so bad as to make me concerned at the time.


----------



## DianeK (Jul 10, 2012)

suburbia said:


> I've had mine lock up on me twice now, just wont respond to focus requests from camera, not seen it happen on any other lens. Both times this has happened in dusk/evening conditions and at first I thought it might be the low light but focus still failed even if pointing at lights and high contrast areas. In both cases only a remount of the lens fixed the issue.
> 
> Looking back Im wondering if the lens got wet but the weather wasn't so bad as to make me concerned at the time.


Ck
Check out this discussion at the POTN forums. You are not alone.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1203463
Diane


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 10, 2012)

MF has been unavailable at times but AF has worked just fine.


----------



## Wideopen (Jul 10, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> MF has been unavailable at times but AF has worked just fine.



You need to press the shutter button half way to send power to the lens to get MF to work. I too forget its a stm lens and wonder whats wrong with the manual focus at times.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 11, 2012)

Perfect, Thanks!


----------



## drjlo (Jul 11, 2012)

My 40mm just arrived today. Few quick shots on 5D III.




DZ3C5181A by drjlo1, on Flickr





DZ3C5155 by drjlo1, on Flickr




DZ3C5146 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Last 2 were with 21 mm extension tube.


----------



## ocabj (Jul 13, 2012)

This is a very fun lens. Definitely glad I bought one. http://www.ocabj.net/canon-ef-40mm-f2-8-stm-pancake-lens/


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 14, 2012)

*Filmcake*

The EF Pancake shot on TMax 100, overdeveloped for contrast in Sprint, scanned into LR4



TMax 100, EF 40 Pancake by barryjohnsonphotography, on Flickr




TMax 100, EF 40 Pancake by barryjohnsonphotography, on Flickr



TMax 100, EF 40 Pancake by barryjohnsonphotography, on Flickr



TMax 100, EF 40 Pancake by barryjohnsonphotography, on Flickr


----------



## dolina (Oct 22, 2012)

Owners,

How do you like your pancake? Worth the purchase or you rather return it?


----------



## Eli (Oct 22, 2012)

Before I got it, I was like meh, what would I need a 40mm f2.8 for.

Then I got one..
..and absolutely love it!

Barely use it though, but it's still great for those situations where I want to bring my camera but don't want to lug around a huge lens with it.
It's awesomely sharp, even wide open, contrast is great and focuses quite fast.

Highly recommend anyone who doesn't have one, to get one.


----------



## DB (Oct 22, 2012)

dolina said:


> Owners,
> 
> How do you like your pancake? Worth the purchase or you rather return it?



Have not bought one as they're US$354 where I live (€269.99), so definitely not worth the purchase :-[ 2x Amazon US price of $175.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 22, 2012)

Mine has been flawless on my 5D3 without the update but has been locking up on my film bodies….arggggh!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2012)

dolina said:


> How do you like your pancake? Worth the purchase or you rather return it?



Really like it. Optically it's very good, and practically, the size makes it very useful. It literally fits in a pocket - my favorite use is walking around with a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 mounted, hanging on a BR strap connected to the tripod collar, and the 40/2.8 in my pocket. When I need a wider AoV, I can swap lenses and leave the white zoom hanging from strap while shooting with the pancake.


----------



## peederj (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm doing the standard thing of using it as a body cap so I can grab quick impromptu shots as needed. It's not truly great but it's better than missing the shot or burdening a group with preparation. I wouldn't rely on it as a primary but it's handy.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 22, 2012)

Just upgraded the firmware and it went without a hitch. I 2nd what Neuro says, plus it gives me more options to take along my camera when I mightnot have otherwise due to space/bulk or not wanting a camera bag. I really like 40mm. Right in between wide and portrait. With the 5D3 and higher ISO keepers I don't mind that it's not super fast either. Good call Canon.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 23, 2012)

dolina said:


> Owners,
> 
> How do you like your pancake? Worth the purchase or you rather return it?



I love it, it goes with me everywhere, although my wife seems to like it too becasue its small and light 
image quality if top shelf on full frame is a brilliant little lens, comparable quality to a good copy of the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 but sharper in the corners and edges than the L

if i'm travelling light i just take the 20mm voitlander, the 40mm pancake and the 85 f1.4 and the 5Dmk3
but I use the 40mm alot because its so versitile.

only downside i've noticed is AF speed is very slow compared to the 24-70, its not dog slow but while it matches the 24-70 in IQ it cant keep up in terms of AF however that said the 24-70 is a very snappy focuser


----------



## dolina (Oct 25, 2012)

Thanks for the comments guys. Decided to get one yesterday.




Pancake time! by alabang, on Flickr


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 26, 2012)

17th Street Photo apparently had the pancake on sale for $149 with free shipping for a while today. It is sold out now though.


----------



## dolina (Oct 26, 2012)

I read in the owner's manual that high accuracy cross type AF is only available at the center for 1-Series bodies. I am unsure if this includes the 5D3 after the April firmware.

All other bodies do not have this feature.

My guess is that the lens is a f/2.8 but is actually slower in terms of t-stop.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 26, 2012)

dolina said:


> Owners,
> 
> How do you like your pancake? Worth the purchase or you rather return it?



totally worth the purchase! small, light, sharp wide open.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > How do you like your pancake? Worth the purchase or you rather return it?
> ...



+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2012)

dolina said:


> Thanks for the comments guys. Decided to get one yesterday.



Enjoy! I know you shoot with long lenses a lot...the 40/2.8 is great to throw in a pocket, so you've got a normal lens with you, just in case.


----------



## dolina (Oct 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the comments guys. Decided to get one yesterday.
> ...



At parties I do not want to be "the camera guy" 

Olympus PEN Commercial - Camera Guy


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the comments guys. Decided to get one yesterday.
> ...



Nothing like a second body for the rainbows which come when shooting birds...


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 26, 2012)

I shot my kids Halloween parade at their school today with the 5D3/Pancake mix. I was surrounded by big lens, on tripods T series kits. I would love a chance to compare images. This lens just continues to amaze me. My finest film work has been shot with it (self dev) and some better than my 24-70 images as well. I keep going to it.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 26, 2012)

This is my playing in the park lens. Don't wanna look like a creep with a big lens in a park full of children!




Vi &amp; Dolly by Philip DiResta, on Flickr




Girls by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> This is my playing in the park lens. Don't wanna look like a creep with a big lens in a park full of children!



Y'know, I tried that. But on a 1D X, a smaller lens doesn't really help all that much.


----------



## Ew (Oct 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > This is my playing in the park lens. Don't wanna look like a creep with a big lens in a park full of children!
> ...



Looks kinda cute actually !!
http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1dxmine.jpeg


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > This is my playing in the park lens. Don't wanna look like a creep with a big lens in a park full of children!
> ...



Hit the park with a 200/2.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh I thought you meant the girls looked kinda cute. That Mom sure is.


----------



## Chris_prophotographic (Jan 9, 2013)

Was there not some issue with the 40mm 2.8 and the 1DX problem with AF and not responding????


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 9, 2013)

Chris_prophotographic said:


> Was there not some issue with the 40mm 2.8 and the 1DX problem with AF and not responding????



there is a firmware update for the lens that fixes this but the update can only be applied to the lens via a newer body


----------



## Chris_prophotographic (Jan 9, 2013)

I just seen that thanks eh!


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 10, 2013)

I went to a motorcycle art show today in Portland. I assumed the lighting would be poor and that I would need a fairly wide lens. It seemed like a good time to have some fun with my pancake lens. I compared notes with a fellow Canonista who was armed with a 70-200 and a speedlight with diffuser. We definitely approached this project in different ways.

I set my 5D3 to AUTO ISO and set shutter speed and aperture manually. It seemed to work pretty well.

ISO 3200 1/200 F/3.2 40mm pancake on 5D3 







ISO 1600 1/200 F/3.2 40mm 5D3






ISO 2000 1/100 F5.0 40mm 5D3





Here's a crop from that last image. You can see there is just a bit of grain at ISO 2000.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 10, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I went to a motorcycle art show today in Portland. I assumed the lighting would be poor and that I would need a fairly wide lens. It seemed like a good time to have some fun with my pancake lens. I compared notes with a fellow Canonista who was armed with a 70-200 and a speedlight with diffuser. We definitely approached this project in different ways.
> 
> I set my 5D3 to AUTO ISO and set shutter speed and aperture manually. It seemed to work pretty well.



Nice pictures and really cool bikes 8)

Was it mainly classic bikes?


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 10, 2013)

Hi Hobby Shooter,

I'm not sure how you define classic bikes, but they were all pretty old! LOL I think there was one brand new Ducati, probably related to the fact that Ducati was one of the sponsors. I think just about every brand I know of was there except there were no Vincents. One guy brought his home made scooter that was quite bizarre looking. I had to google the brand name "Klausmann" which turns out to be the name of the guy who built it in his garage. Pretty funny.

They must have had over a hundred old bikes there and a lot of art photography too. The place is at 420 NE 9th in Portland, OR and the show will be there tomorrow too if you want to check it out.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 10, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Hi Hobby Shooter,
> 
> I'm not sure how you define classic bikes, but they were all pretty old! LOL I think there was one brand new Ducati, probably related to the fact that Ducati was one of the sponsors. I think just about every brand I know of was there except there were no Vincents. One guy brought his home made scooter that was quite bizarre looking. I had to google the brand name "Klausmann" which turns out to be the name of the guy who built it in his garage. Pretty funny.
> 
> They must have had over a hundred old bikes there and a lot of art photography too. The place is at 420 NE 9th in Portland, OR and the show will be there tomorrow too if you want to check it out.


Hi,

by classic I meant 20? years old basically. I really like the looks of older bikes. Fun about Klausmann.

Yeah, it would have been nice to get there, but I live in South East Asia so might not make it in time


----------



## noncho (Feb 10, 2013)

Before I got 40 2.8 I didn't expected something special...

But now I have it and I know - it's great little lens!
I have test it on my 60D and friend's 5d II. My friend is stock photographer and he was impressed by image quality from such small lens. Great for walk around on 60D, I used 60mm macro for that before. For 149$ is a bargain, 199$ is still worth it. In Europe is pretty expensive... 

The only thing that can make me sell it is if new Sigma 30 1.4 have great image quality and it's not too expensive(I have 50 and 60mm lens).


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 10, 2013)

I bought that lens for when I went skiing some weeks ago just to save some space and I was absolutely not disappointed. Great sharpness, easy to use and dirt cheap. I returned it afterwards though because I got a Tamron 24-70 2.8 which magically covers the focal length of 40mm and I saw no real reason for keeping it besides the size, which I do not need that often, because I carry around my stuffed camera pack anyway.


----------



## prjkt (Feb 10, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> I bought that lens for when I went skiing some weeks ago just to save some space and I was absolutely not disappointed. Great sharpness, easy to use and dirt cheap. I returned it afterwards though because I got a Tamron 24-70 2.8 which magically covers the focal length of 40mm and I saw no real reason for keeping it besides the size, which I do not need that often, because I carry around my stuffed camera pack anyway.


I have both, used to use the 24 & 28 mm focal lengths on APS quite often, so when I upgraded to the 6D, the 40mm magically sits between the two
Depending on my work (mostly nightclub and party photography) I'll often have the 40mm on for weight considerations, or the 24-70 if I need versatility


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 10, 2013)

Re: walking around lenses...

I hate walking around with a big zoom on a full sized body. I can't enjoy my walk, or my vacation that way. And it's not just the weight, I worry about letting the camera/lens bump into stuff or being stolen.

The pancake lens is a great way to reduce weight and bulk for "walking around" or as I call it, doing the tourist thing. I like to put it on my little T2i which is super lightweight itself. Now that really is a walking around combo!


----------

