I own a 50L and I really really love it but I'm considering selling it for financial reasons and because it's a little too tight for me.

I would really like a 40-45mm fast lens.
I am thinking about the voigtlander 40mm f2 ultron or maybe the zuiko 40mm f2, they are both pretty much the same price and look pretty good.
Is there anything faster?
What are the good lens that fit my need?

Thank you.

So for your purposes, "better" means faster? Because if F2.8 is acceptable, the Pentax 40mm F2.8 pancake is magnificantly sharp and has 9 perfectly rounded blades. A friend of mine owns it and I'm always thoroughly impressed by the optical quality of the images it creates - ESPECIALLY the bokeh. Oh my, the bokeh is smooth. I hear it's pretty easy to adapt K Mount to Canon as well.

EDIT: Pentax also makes a 43mm F1.9, but I know very little about it in comparison. It's also rarer and more expensive.

I don't think there's any 40/1.4 adaptable to EF mount.
Somebody (JMan13, I reckon) has one and uses it with EP-1.

I have a 40/2 but haven't tested it on DSLRs yet.

I vote for the Voigtlander

The Nikon 45mm f2.8 P is superb. Very good contrast and colors that pop. It is supposed to be very similar in design to the CZ 45mm f2.8 pancake.
The OM 40mm f2 is probably the best one and is highly regarded. It is usable right from f2.0. This is also the smallest 40mm lens you can mount on your Canon SLR without any issues.

I have not tried the 40mm f2.0 Ultron, but have the SLII 20mm f3.5. If the build quality and image quality if as good as the 20mm, it is definitely worth the $$$'s.

The ideal replacement for the Canon 50L is either the Olympus 50mm f1.2 or the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AiS.

Minolta Rokkor 45mm f/2 can be converted for canon and is generally dirt cheap. Under $50 easily.

-Ed

brainiac has posted some very nice samples from the Zuiko 40/2 in the past

OM

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Minolta Rokkor 45mm f/2 can be converted for canon and is generally dirt cheap. Under $50 easily.

-Ed

I might just try it, how good is the lens? any mirror problems with a 5dmkII?

Thanks.

Edit: thanks anyway but after a bit of research I decided it's not worth converting the lens...

How is the Kilfitt 40 macro?

The Voightlander and OM are far and away the best options. IMHO the Voigtlander's a bit better optically, is available new for less than the OM sells for and includes a hood and a close-up adapter that gets you 1:4.

The Pentax 40/2.8 is quite a good lens, but corner performance suffers, especially on the M version which is the only adaptable version for DSLR users. The DA Limited is better at the edges but not up to the f2's.

The Nikon and Contax 45/2.8's are both excellent for their simple Tessar design. Superb bokeh and centre sharpness but like the similar Pentax 40, edge performance suffers especially at wide apertures.

The Konica Hexanon 40/1.8 is by all reports an excellent lens, but requires work to adapt to mounts other than 4/3rds.

@pascal03: the 20/3.5 is by far the worst performer of the SLII lenses. It's still pretty darned good.

Anybody every use the Pentax 43mm f/1.9 FA limited? How does it stack up to the others?

The minolta 45/2 is really not bad, on par with the others. Cheaper than most if not all, and the conversion is not too bad. I'll post the test results soon, it compares well with the OM 40/2 from the tests of both in Modern Photography in years past.

-Ed

Here is a set of pics taken with the Minolta Rokkor 45f2 on a 5D.Very nice lens
PS. this copy is for sale.: http://www.flickr.com/photos/footstool67/sets/72157622079471838/

For Sale here : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820795

The Voigtlander 40/2 is pretty sweet, but here are some alternatives to consider:

1) Get a 35L... you will NOT be disappointed and you keep AF. It's close enough to 40mm and you can always crop a tiny bit with all those pixels on the 5D2.

2) Get a GF1 and the 20/1.7.

OK, I am a HUGE fan of Pentax lenses. I have bought and sold the very best.

I have the M series 40/2.8. Its really a great sample of the "Pancake"offerings. But, to be honest, it does not have the best IQ I have seen from Pentax. I should mention that I have only one sample to base this impression on.

I would be very interested in a shoot out test with this lens against the Oly version...

Pentax DA40/2.8 has no aperture ring so it is useless on EOS body. The 20 years old M40/2.8 is FF, well made and has 5 aperture blades but optically not particular good by todays standard. FA43/1.9 has great sharpness corner to corner from f2.8 on APS-C, with 8 aperture blades but rather soft wide open. Also, the corners aren't particular great and barrel distortion is noticeable on FF.

Has anybody used the Konica 40/1.8 compared with the other 40mm lenses out there? I've seen it for pretty cheap as a kit lens with the Autoreflex bodies.

dirb9;
I "grew up" with the Konica 40/1.8 on a Konica FC-B (I think). It was my very first lens and my very first camera. I was around 15 then and processed the negs at school. The detail was amazing from this lens and I realized many years later into photography that I had started out with one of the better ones.

I have shot the Nikkor 45P, the Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8, the Contax G 45mm (and numerous other 50mm lenses) and my favourites are the Contax G45/2 and the old Hexanon 40/1.8.
I have a battered copy of the 40/1.8 but I don't know if it is feasible to convert it to the Sony Alpha mount. I used it briefly in the 4:3 mount on a PanaLeica which is close to the native Konica mount - it looked great.

hi,

i'm selling my olympus 40mm on ebay.de.
its the sample for 432.
if u bid 415 its yours ...

so dont hesitate ...

r-)