40/2.8 is very good
/forum/topic/1125037/2

1       2      
3
       4              11       12       end

cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4667
Country: United States

Hr,. I expressed little interest in this focal length, yet I feel the urge to purchase. Must avoid sample threads.



mattbru
Registered: Jul 07, 2010
Total Posts: 47
Country: United States

It's a 'fun' lens to use. Plus it completes my unholy trio.




It's not silent, I hear it. My dog definitely hears it and reacts to its electronic 'whine'.



goosemang
Registered: Oct 21, 2011
Total Posts: 1562
Country: United States

man, just getting some of these shots on my large monitor tonight. this lens is great! sharp at 2.8, no question about it. nice contrast. yeah, it vignettes quite a bit wide open, but whatever. at $200 it's a complete no-brainer if 40mm is a focal length you're comfortable with. a pleasant surprise...



JohnJ80
Registered: May 11, 2005
Total Posts: 5647
Country: United States

I think this would be a great lens on a T3 or T4 camera. It would be not a whole lot larger than some of the big sensor point and shoots but would have a ton more capability and would not be much different in price.

J.



tanglefoot47
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Total Posts: 14825
Country: United States

Looks like a little turd but tonight I ordered one what a bargain lens



mattbru
Registered: Jul 07, 2010
Total Posts: 47
Country: United States

tanglefoot47 wrote:
Looks like a little turd but tonight I ordered one what a bargain lens


and Canon delivered ON TIME!

and it's in stock EVERYWHERE!

Now where is that 'big turd' of a 24-70v2 lens?



davidearls
Registered: Mar 09, 2006
Total Posts: 3507
Country: United States

Methinks this lens is unofficially for the 5D series. 5D, no grip, light as a feather, FF. You're still confused?

Lenses designed specifically for Canon crop bodies are labeled EF-S, no?

JMO.



tanglefoot47
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Total Posts: 14825
Country: United States

mattbru wrote:
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Looks like a little turd but tonight I ordered one what a bargain lens


and Canon delivered ON TIME!

and it's in stock EVERYWHERE!

Now where is that 'big turd' of a 24-70v2 lens?


What's funny I already have a buyer



RogerC11
Registered: Mar 31, 2009
Total Posts: 2221
Country: United States

davidearls wrote:
Methinks this lens is unofficially for the 5D series. 5D, no grip, light as a feather, FF. You're still confused?

Lenses designed specifically for Canon crop bodies are labeled EF-S, no?

JMO.

But EF lenses are not exclusively designed for FF only.



bmorena
Registered: Apr 19, 2011
Total Posts: 48
Country: United States

I think I've just been convinced to buy this lens. I love 40mm FOV, For me it's the perfect compromise between distortion and FOV. My only hesitation is speed.



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 15987
Country: United States

Mike V wrote:
I can't wait to get this lens.

Sounds awesome.

I wish it was f2, but I guess it would have had to be bigger maybe.


I don;t think you can make a 40mm f/2 pancake and if you could the image quality would be poor. It is easier to make great quality if you make a lens slower.



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 15987
Country: United States

ndirienzo wrote:
Not next to a 50, but a comparison nonetheless



I wanna see it paired next to the 1200mm



ndirienzo
Registered: May 10, 2008
Total Posts: 844
Country: United States

Yea, I'm totally digging this lens







Daan B
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Total Posts: 7591
Country: Netherlands

faremax wrote:
Daan B wrote:
ndirienzo wrote:
Daan B wrote:
Looks like a great lens. But I fail to see how it is attractive only for still photography. Especially since the 35/2 is tiny as well (maybe not pancake tiny, but nonetheless) and a stop faster too. Now, of course it makes sense to buy the pancake if AF video is the main goal.


Yea, I see what you're saying, but it's about 1/3 the size of the 35/2. The AF is way faster, too. Oh, and it costs less.
]

IIRC the 40 pancake has a STM AF motor... not the fastest in the world. I wonder how it holds up against the 35/2. My guess is that they are on par or the 35/2 is faster... and louder


40mm is faster and sharper than 35/2


Did you do a direct comparison?



jamesf99
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 7238
Country: United States

skibum5 wrote:
Mike V wrote:
I can't wait to get this lens.

Sounds awesome.

I wish it was f2, but I guess it would have had to be bigger maybe.


I don;t think you can make a 40mm f/2 pancake and if you could the image quality would be poor. It is easier to make great quality if you make a lens slower.



Tell that to the companies that are already doing it. There are probably 3 or 4 available today, albeit Pentax did it for a smaller sensor.



DocsPics
Registered: Feb 02, 2008
Total Posts: 2493
Country: United States

I'm buying two and stack them to make an 80/4 (or would that make it a 5.6 )



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4243
Country: Norway

jamesf99 wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Mike V wrote:
I can't wait to get this lens.

Sounds awesome.

I wish it was f2, but I guess it would have had to be bigger maybe.


I don;t think you can make a 40mm f/2 pancake and if you could the image quality would be poor. It is easier to make great quality if you make a lens slower.



Tell that to the companies that are already doing it. There are probably 3 or 4 available, today albeit Pentax did it for a smaller sensor.


Ok, but the 40 2.8 STM is pancake light. You get get two of them for the weight and price of an Ultron 40.

As I said before, people wishing for a 40mm f/2 from Canon, wish for another lens. You cannot say that you want "this lens" to be faster.



jamesf99
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 7238
Country: United States

alundeb wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Mike V wrote:
I can't wait to get this lens.

Sounds awesome.

I wish it was f2, but I guess it would have had to be bigger maybe.


I don;t think you can make a 40mm f/2 pancake and if you could the image quality would be poor. It is easier to make great quality if you make a lens slower.



Tell that to the companies that are already doing it. There are probably 3 or 4 available, today albeit Pentax did it for a smaller sensor.


Ok, but the 40 2.8 STM is pancake light. You get get two of them for the weight and price of an Ultron 40.

As I said before, people wishing for a 40mm f/2 from Canon, wish for another lens. You cannot say that you want "this lens" to be faster.


Sucker that I am for AF, I already bought the Canon.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4243
Country: Norway

jamesf99 wrote:
Sucker that I am for AF, I already bought the Canon.


Mine shipped yesterday. Even though I have the 35/2, Ultron 40 and the 50/1.8, I found a place for it



jamesf99
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 7238
Country: United States

alundeb wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
Sucker that I am for AF, I already bought the Canon.


Mine shipped yesterday. Even though I have the 35/2, Ultron 40 and the 50/1.8, I found a place for it


I don't have the 35/2 or Ultron 40, but would like to try both. I have the 35 f/1.4 and 50's coming out my ears (dumped the L, sort of wish I still had it).

The new 40 weighs the same as the f/1.8 though it should be "slimmer".



1       2      
3
       4              11       12       end