Sharp as a pancake (Canon 40mm)

Orville

Orville

Suspended / Banned
Messages
803
Edit My Images
No
The Postman has just delivered a 40mm pancake. My initial impressions are very good. Build is solid, AF is pretty quick, it handles very well on a 6D, and it is sharp from wide open. Vignetting is well controlled for such a miniscule lens on FF, and even the bokeh is pleasing. This may save me £1500 on a 24-70mm II, assuming I keep this and my 24-105 instead.

Full Test Images available to view/download here
testdrv.jpg


100% crops
F/2.8
44259935.jpg


F/4.0
27122836.jpg


F/5.6
48541851.jpg


F/8.0
67393127.jpg


F/11
37334369.jpg


For about £130 there is little else which can compete with it's build, sharpness and useful 40mm field of view (64mm on a crop sensor). It is sharper than my 50mm F/1.4 at same apertures right up until F/5.6 where the two become pretty much equal. I generally find the fifity too soft to use below F/2.0, so the pancake really only a stop slower. AF feels a tad faster on 40mm. The forty is a bit wide for portaits on FF, but should suit crop sensors very well in this respect. On FF, the forty is better for small group shots or as a general low-profile walkabout prime. It feels very similar to the 30mm F/2.0 I use on my Samsung NX1000 carry-everywhere-compact. I intend to take it out at the weekend and see how it performs on the street.
 
Last edited:
I got mine last year when it was first released. I too was finding my 50mm f/1.4 to soft to use at the larger f stops, although really only outdoors. This was back when my 60D was my main camera.
Since getting my 5DIII things have reversed a bit and I prefer the 50 now, although the 40 still gets used.
I find the AF on the 50 to be a bit snappier, I find the 40 doesn't keep up well with AI Servo but I don't really use it like that.
I also notice the Lens can give an odd effect in the VF when viewed slightly off centre, but that's a very minor irritation.
Well worth the money though, especially at the current prices (compared to when I got mine)
 
One point not so great about this lens is Manual Focus. The focus ring isn't mechanically tied to the optics, meaning that the ring sends electronic signals to the motor which then performs the movement. Things feel a little hesitant in MF mode, and when using live view at 10x maginification it can take several backwards and forwards attempts to get focus spot on.

The above is only a minor gripe (I am feeling super critical), but for the money this is a superb lens. On my 6D it will replace my 50mm as the regular travel lens. This makes for a very light and compact DSLR, which can even fit into a jacket pocket (shame the summer is coming), but I will still use the 50 for low-light or indoor shooting without a flash. I prefer the 40mm length to the 50mm. 40mm feels like a party shot lens, great for two or three person shots, whilst the fifty feels like a short portrait lens on FF.

F/5.6 seems to be the sweatspot for sharpness, but you would have to print at 24" x 16" or larger to notice any difference in centre sharpness over it's wide open setting.
 
Last edited:
The main reason I got mine was so I could take my 60D away to gigs with me. With the 40mm mounted I could fit it in my suit bag pocket. Even with my 50mm on it was too big for this. It was either the 40mm or the 35 f2, but the 40 was cheaper and slightly smaller.

One other bonus is the closer minimum focusing distance. So many time in the past when out sitting in a restaurant or pub I've had to stand up and back away, or miss the shot. The 40mm seems to be ideal for closer shooting.
 
It's funny, because of it's size and cost I think people expect this lens to behave like a toy when really it's a bit of a powerhouse. As long as you're not using manual focus and the AoV works for you it really is good. Nice to see other people using it on here!
 
I am SO impressed with my 40mm, I utterly love it! and it gets on the front of my camera ahead of various L glass I have. Great lens, which almost allows me to blend into the crowd.

20130530-IMG_1424.jpg


Sharper the the 24-105 @ 40mm (f/7.1) :lol:

makes an excellent pano lens due to the scale it produces:

20130530-IMG_1431_stitch.jpg
(forgive composition and crop, i'm way off center)

i love it!
 
I keep meaning to try one of these out, this thread may have tipped me over the edge... Even though I own a Mk1 Nifty and a 50L lol. I do love that sort of focal length though.
 
Would the 40mm be a good replacement for the 50mm Nifty?

I have. 50mm and it is great in low light. What's the 40mm like?
 
i'm thinking about one of these at some point, does seem to be a well loved little lens amongst users here and elsewhere :)
 
Raincloud said:
Would the 40mm be a good replacement for the 50mm Nifty?

I have. 50mm and it is great in low light. What's the 40mm like?
Click to expand...
I don't really see it as a replacement. It is more of a supplement or an alternative. The fifty is faster (wider aperture) when you need it but the forty is sharper, and for me it has a more usable slightly-wider range. I think that I will use mine more often than the fifty, but I will still use the fifty.

Whether F/2.8 is fast enough for you in low light depends largely on your body, and what you do with the images. Using a 6D, I am happy going up to ISO 6400 (even 12800 at a push), but this may not be possible on older bodies. F/2.8 @ ISO 6400 does a good job in dim light, but obviously loses a stop and a third over the Fifty 1.8. One point to note is that it is a wider lens so can work with a slightly lower shutter speed than the fifty. I can hand hold at 1/30sec but I wouldn't want to go and lower, and this only works for stationary (compliant) subjects.
 
Last edited:
Orville said:
I don't really see it as a replacement. It is more of a supplement or an alternative. The fifty is faster (wider aperture) when you need it but the forty is sharper, and for me it has a more usable slightly-wider range. I think that I will use mine more often than the fifty, but I will still use the fifty.

Whether F/2.8 is fast enough for you in low light depends largely on your body, and what you do with the images. Using a 6D, I am happy going up to ISO 6400 (even 12800 at a push), but this may not be possible on older bodies. F/2.8 @ ISO 6400 does a good job in dim light, but obviously loses a stop and a third over the Fifty 1.8. One point to note is that it is a wider lens so can work with a slightly lower shutter speed than the fifty. I can hand hold at 1/30sec but I wouldn't want to go and lower, and this only works for stationary (compliant) subjects.
Click to expand...

I have a 550D
 
Raincloud said:
I have a 550D
Click to expand...
Does the fifty feel too long for you? If you have a zoom lens, try 40 and 50mm composition to see which feels most useful. The 550D is not a bad camera in terms of ISO performance, but you will notice the loss of the F/1.8 from the fifty. If you shoot a lot in low light it's probably best to keep the fifty, however if most of your shots are in good light, the 40 will likely be the more useable lens. I will say that the fifty always felt a tad too long on my 7D, but I sold the 7D before getting the 40, so I did not try both together.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Id say a 35 f/2 would make a bigger difference though. I had a reason to get mine (small size), but had i really wanted a lens that felt wider, or more useful for everyday use, i would have gone for the 35mm again.
Click to expand...
I did consider the 35mm for that extra stop of light gathering, but it cannot match the resolution of the 40mm. Wide open at F2.8 the 40mm is sharper than the 35mm when it is set at F/5.6 (it's sharpest aperture). The 35mm also costs 50% more and is larger, although still petite. 35mm may well work better than 40mm on a crop body, where 40mm (64mm) can still be a bit long.
 
I cant say ive got any shots from my old 35F2 that look any worse than my 40mm shots at normal viewing sizes.
I do understand that the old 35F2 is a bit long in the tooth, and not quite as sexy looking (both looks and price) as the 40mm, but its got a very good reputation and if you do need wider its not going to disappoint (IME of course).
They can be picked up for around £110 second hand so price wise i think its still a runner, but thats just my thoughts.
You cant go wrong with either, id say FL should be placed higher than ultimate resolution (IMO too much is made of something most people will never see or notice).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top