Pixel Perfect wrote:
Oops, I had it in my mind both the new lenses (18-135) had IS. Well then I take it back, I don't think it's great value at all for a slow 40mm lens at all with stepper motor rather than USM.
You're right, it is expensive considering it's not USM and is slow, but it is a pancake, and I'm a sucker for pancakes. Canon only charges twice what they do for their faster 50mm f/1.8, which is all we can expect from them now.
BTW - I think if you get a new 35mm it will be a) slow, b) extremely expensive, and bringing up the read with a very distant c) could have IS....
You're right, it is expensive considering it's not USM and is slow, but it is a pancake, and I'm a sucker for pancakes. Canon only charges twice what they do for their faster 50mm f/1.8, which is all we can expect from them now.
BTW - I think if you get a new 35mm it will be a) slow, b) extremely expensive, and bringing up the read with a very distant c) could have IS....
I'd still get a Ultron 40 f/2 II if I wanted a pancake.
I forgot to mention I'm more hopeful Sigma will deliver a fast 35mm, in light of their 50/85 f/1.4. before Canon ever updates the 35 f/2.
mattbru wrote:
From my experience, the AF speed is a touch slower, but hunts less to acquire final focus in low light.
I used it at my Granddaughter's baptism... I found it was hunting a very little bit in the church, but I am thinking it was more me getting to close to the baby then a low light issue... I really like the lens! It's a keeper in my mind!
Regarding USM, it has STM for the focusing... something for video users... don't reall know the difference...
Here is a link to a original JPG not edited so you can see the EXIF information...
Some testshots comparing the Shorty Fourty to the 50 1.4 and voigtlander 40 2.0 (all images are unedited, only resize and standard sharpening has been applied):
Canon 40mm:
Voigtlander 40mm:
Canon 50mm 1.4 (took a step back too much):
Canon 40mm:
Voigtlander 40mm:
Canon 50mm 1.4:
And a comparison with the 35L:
40 2.8:
35L:
40 2.8:
35L:
I'm really impressed how much the Shorty 40 images look like the 35L's.
Arigo wrote:
Some testshots comparing the Shorty Fourty to the 50 1.4 and voigtlander 40 2.0 (all images are unedited, only resize and standard sharpening has been applied):
I'm really impressed how much the Shorty 40 images look like the 35L's.
Nice tests, thanks.
Maybe OT, but I really like the look of the Voigtlander; the bokeh appears to be very smooth. How do you find the sharpness of that lens?
Arigo wrote:
Some testshots comparing the Shorty Fourty to the 50 1.4 and voigtlander 40 2.0 (all images are unedited, only resize and standard sharpening has been applied):
I'm really impressed how much the Shorty 40 images look like the 35L's.
Thanks for the images.
Can you define 'standard' sharpening, and let us know exactly whatever sharpening settings were used in ACR, or what software was used to process these images?
I'll be doing some testing soon too, so I'd like to compare results where possible.
@Jamesf99: Think I used Lighroom 4.1 for conversion from RAW to JPG, then put everything together in Indesign and exported as JPG. I'll check tonight at home (I'm at the office now).
@Garyvot: The Voigtlander is not as sharp as the Canon, but can be magical when you nail the focus... I'll upload another image later in the 3rd party forum.
Arigo wrote:
@Jamesf99: Think I used Lighroom 4.1 for conversion from RAW to JPG, then put everything together in Indesign and exported as JPG. I'll check tonight at home (I'm at the office now).
@Garyvot: The Voigtlander is not as sharp as the Canon, but can be magical when you nail the focus... I'll upload another image later in the 3rd party forum.
I haven't upgraded anything yet, so I have CS5 and LR 3.7. I'm not sure the engine has changed though, with changes only in supported cameras and UI updates.
Knowing the camera might help too (as this is the film we use). I'm going to use this as a P&S lens on a 5d only right now.
BTW - the new 40 pancake does seem to hold it's own against the 2x more expensive Ultron, and has AF.. Maybe it's the best bang for the buck Canon has offered in almost a decade; time will tell.
I think its important to keep in mind certain things about the lens. I think it performs quite well for $199. At some point it will probably be around $150 used, which is a great deal.
There will always be faster, better performing primes of course. But this lens was designed to be small, unobtrusive, and provide smooth video AF (despite awkward sound). You can easily carry it around in your pocket.
And lets not forget that if Canon does something crazy with an EF mount mirrorless, it would only further increase the utility of this lens.
mattbru wrote:
I think its important to keep in mind certain things about the lens. I think it performs quite well for $199. At some point it will probably be around $150 used, which is a great deal.
There will always be faster, better performing primes of course. But this lens was designed to be small, unobtrusive, and provide smooth video AF (despite awkward sound). You can easily carry it around in your pocket.
And lets not forget that if Canon does something crazy with an EF mount mirrorless, it would only further increase the utility of this lens.
The price will fall but I doubt that it will reach $150 soon, unless someone starts mistreating/beating their lens today. Let's hope not.
This lens on a rumored Canon MILC with G1x sensor wouldn't be my choice. At 75mm+ (not 80mm) with a single FL it's too long to be of much use to most people buying that camera. I'll use it at 40mm on FF, which is where it belongs IMO.
jamesf99 wrote:
This lens on a rumored Canon MILC with G1x sensor wouldn't be my choice. At 75mm+ (not 80mm) with a single FL it's too long to be of much use to most people buying that camera. I'll use it at 40mm on FF, which is where it belongs IMO.
That's why I said "something crazy". One can hope for FF mirrorless!
Mike V wrote:
Do you ask your missus why she needs so many shoes also?
:-)
Actually, many times I told her that she has too many. Normally I wouldn't mind but we live in a very small apartment and it gets way too crowded. She just ignores me with a laconic "Yes, I do". I really hate that.
Mike V wrote:
Well, according to TDP it's optically better, if you could stand the noise.
