p.1 #1 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
The sizes are comparable, does a centimeter matter here or there? An ounce or two? Being able to have 2.0 is nice. Is the quality of the pancake better than the old 35?
p.1 #2 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
Got them both. I could live with the 35 alone but not the 40 alone. A stop is a lot to me. If you have the 35 I would stick with it unless you are unhappy with the shots it produces. The pancake is sharper across the board wide open but if you stop the 35 to 2.8 they are pretty close to my eye. I am still trying to figure out when I will use the 40. Right now it has been pretty much an expensive body cap
p.1 #3 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
stevez32 wrote:
The sizes are comparable, does a centimeter matter here or there? An ounce or two? Being able to have 2.0 is nice. Is the quality of the pancake better than the old 35?
I actually have the 40/pancake, 35/2.0 & 35/1.4...the 40mm is my super compact travel lens. Very sharp across the frame & very good performance over-all. The 35/2.0 has the extra stop of course and even though it is not super sharp wide open, it is sharp in the center and almost as good as the 40 @ 2.8 & above. Still, the differences between the two are marginal...I'd give the 40 the slight edge in size, build quality & IQ and the 35/2 of course is very usable @ f/2.0 for when you need the extra stop. However, that is not enough difference for me to keep both so I have replaced the 35/2.0 with the f/1.4. Now the combo of the 35/1.4 & the 40 is killer I think...one VERY fast & one VERY compact. The 35/2 is still (IMO) a very good & affordable lens that offers a good compromise between size, speed, & price...If you can only afford one, I'd say get the 35/2 but if you can swing both, get the 35/1.4 & the 40. As always, YMMV.
p.1 #4 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
In some respects a pancake lens is more versatile. I think this will become more apparent as Canon produces more mirrorless cameras where a "standard" prime will overwhelm the body.
p.1 #5 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
omarlyn wrote:
I actually have the 40/pancake, 35/2.0 & 35/1.4...the 40mm is my super compact travel lens. Very sharp across the frame & very good performance over-all. The 35/2.0 has the extra stop of course and even though it is not super sharp wide open, it is sharp in the center and almost as good as the 40 @ 2.8 & above. Still, the differences between the two are marginal...I'd give the 40 the slight edge in size, build quality & IQ and the 35/2 of course is very usable @ f/2.0 for when you need the extra stop. However, that is not enough difference for me to keep both so I have replaced the 35/2.0 with the f/1.4. Now the combo of the 35/1.4 & the 40 is killer I think...one VERY fast & one VERY compact. The 35/2 is still (IMO) a very good & affordable lens that offers a good compromise between size, speed, & price...If you can only afford one, I'd say get the 35/2 but if you can swing both, get the 35/1.4 & the 40. As always, YMMV.
I think this makes a lot of sense. There are some instances where compactness is more important than shooting with a wide aperture - travel, going to the zoo with the kids, etc....
p.1 #6 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
omarlyn wrote:
I actually have the 40/pancake, 35/2.0 & 35/1.4...the 40mm is my super compact travel lens. Very sharp across the frame & very good performance over-all. The 35/2.0 has the extra stop of course and even though it is not super sharp wide open, it is sharp in the center and almost as good as the 40 @ 2.8 & above. Still, the differences between the two are marginal...I'd give the 40 the slight edge in size, build quality & IQ and the 35/2 of course is very usable @ f/2.0 for when you need the extra stop. However, that is not enough difference for me to keep both so I have replaced the 35/2.0 with the f/1.4. Now the combo of the 35/1.4 & the 40 is killer I think...one VERY fast & one VERY compact. The 35/2 is still (IMO) a very good & affordable lens that offers a good compromise between size, speed, & price...If you can only afford one, I'd say get the 35/2 but if you can swing both, get the 35/1.4 & the 40. As always, YMMV.
I have the 35 2.0 and the 1.4, 50 1.8 and just not sure how the pancake would add anything new, although it is small, I can't imagine saying, "dang you know I would take my 35mm but I that extra half inch in the front is too much to handle"
p.1 #7 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
I have had my 40mm f2.8 for a week now and I love it. The perspective is more pleasing on my FF 5D Mk2 body than on my 550D. It is great for street photography and has good close up performance for flowers & butterflies etc. it seems very sharp and is quite discreet.
p.1 #8 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
I briefly owned the 35 f/2 and liked the IQ well enough, though not the build as it felt a bit delicate. To clarify, I'm not rough on my gear but the 40mm, with it's low profile and (seemingly) better construction, instills more confidence and the IQ is at least as good, even wide open. If I had the means, I would follow Omar's lead and have both the pancake AND a fast 35L for more challenging light and even better build quality. Add $$ and stir!
p.1 #10 · Asides from price, why 40mm 2.8 STM over the 35mm 2.0?
Monito wrote:
The 35mm f/2 receives the EW-65II lenshood.
40 mm f/2.8 has 9 blades for bokeh.
An excellent point regarding bokeh. The 35 f2, like the 50 1.8, has a five blade aperture, which to my eye and taste is not good. If you like penta star patterns or are a die hard Chrysler fan, then you love it. Me... Not so much.
