If you have 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 on a 5DII, would you consider getting 40mm STM?
I'm trying to justify buying it, at $299 seems a very good bargain. however, it could very well be a very expensive paper weight, if you ended up using 35 and 50 more.
Thanks for all opinion.
I fail to see the need for a 40mm 2.8 when you have the 35L and 50L for still photography. The difference in focal length is minimal and the 35L and 50L are way faster. Of course if you like to use the video AF of the newer camera's or want a small and light lens, the 40mm seems like it's worth a try... especially since it's price is good
Just because you might use the fast lenses more, that doesn't make the 40 a paperweight.
Perhaps you might use the lenses in proportion to what they cost as a fraction of the cost of the three.
Much depends on what you use your lenses for. If you use them at f/1.4 most frequently for low light purposes, then you'd miss that in the 40 mm f/2.8, though less so on modern high ISO cameras. If you use them most for shallow depth of field at f/1.4, then you'd miss that.
However, the 40 mm f/2.8 might cure some photographers of the razor thin Depth of Field fetish.
Besides, it is less risky and lighter and smaller and less obvious to carry around than the big honking lenses.
But only you would be able to say what you use the lenses for, though you haven't said so far.
Typically indoor... shooting family event.. when in the street..i tend to go with the normal zoom.
So it really comes down to it's an interesting lens to try but not sure if it has a fit for my need, rather than the novelty factor ;-)
I do like it being lighter and smaller lens.. but it's doesn't provide any faster aperture than a zoom I have.. so can't even justify that usage as well..
I think I just answer my question.. keep the $299 in my wallet a little longer :-D
I wasn't interested in it at first...but then I started thinking it would come in handy for the occasional wider shot when I'm out with just the 70-200 (by far my most used FL range). It's perfect for this...being so small it easily fits in the top pocket of my smaller camera bag (which is just big enough for the camera w/70-200 mounted).
After picking one up and comparing it to some of my other lenses I'm astounded at how good it actually is. For the price it's a little gem and the tiny size makes it a perfect solution me.
Absolutely an outstanding little lens and the price is so right. I use it on both my FF and crop and love the sharpness and DOF. I have all the aforementioned glass and much much more and it definitely adds capability and value to my lens portfolio.
I do not consider getting it since I am better off with my 35/1.4, 50/1.2 and also 50/1.4 when needed. But I can see its use for low weight travelling for example.
jojosung wrote:
If you have 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 on a 5DII, would you consider getting 40mm STM?
I'm trying to justify buying it, at $299 seems a very good bargain. however, it could very well be a very expensive paper weight, if you ended up using 35 and 50 more.
Thanks for all opinion.
I am thinking opposite now, why would I need 35L? This lens is just great including bokeh and sharpness. I could buy like 6 of them for one 35L
This lens is just great including bokeh and sharpness. I could buy like 6 of them for one 35L