I pre ordered the shorty forty (I guess that's it name now right) and love it. Image quality is good - not brilliant like a 135f2 or something but good - and it's great to have a small lens in some cases. I still use the 50f1.4 for different reasons, so it's not an either or to me.
the only reason I see if you already have a 35L would be space. They say it will take little to no room in your bag making room for others. Other than that, I'd rather shoot with the 35 if it's on you.
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.
Actually, I'm having much more problems justifying this small lens against ordinary EF-35/2: The new pancake is not that lighter, not that smaller, and still is a stop slower. :-)
langdoy wrote:
the only reason I see if you already have a 35L would be space. They say it will take little to no room in your bag making room for others. Other than that, I'd rather shoot with the 35 if it's on you.
I'm in the same boat, looks like a fun little lens but I can't imagine a scenario where I would pick it up over the 35L. Its not like the 35L is a big lens.
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 almost can't see any reason to buy it except for weight and size reasons.. but the primes are hardly large or heavy.
Contrary to what the numbers might indicate, the 40mm FOV is quite different from 35mm and 50mm. It's a different feel, considered by some to be the true "normal" lens for the 24X36 format. You may like it or you may not, but it definitely has its place, especially on FF and film.
I think this pancake lens is just a money lens for canon. 40mm is not a commonly used FL, it's f/2.8, looks like a toy (god it's a pancake lens ), but has a good IQ.
Canon now offers a lens with very nice image quality for a very low price for everyone who needs something better than the kit lens (really very very better).
I'd not buy this lens although it's a nice lens.
Just think 35~40~50 looks a lot close.
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.
Not for me unless I pick up the M body and then I'd probably get both the 40 and 22 and use that kit as a travel or family snaps setup.
On my current full frame setup I have those focal length covered with much higher quality lenses .. so as cute, small and inexpensive as STM's are I really have no need for them.
I bought one so I'd have to say yes although I don't have a 35. I'm guessing your L's are quite a bit heavier and I love the weight of the 40. For me 40 is a perfect FL on full frame slightly wider than the 50 without the distortion of a 35.
I bought one, and really like the look on my full frame. Its light, nice focal length, and super sharp even wide open. The price makes it a great value if you like shooting 40mm.
robert61 wrote:
I bought one, and really like the look on my full frame. Its light, nice focal length, and super sharp even wide open. The price makes it a great value if you like shooting 40mm.
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 have both. A few years ago I bought the Voigtlander 40mm. I didn't think I would use all three but with hindsight I find I use the 40 very often, I found I liked the focal length and the lightness of the lens. If I didn't have the Voigtlander I would likely buy the Canon 40.
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.
Absolutely not needed if you already own a 35mm. Save the money for something else, maybe an 85 f/1.8.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Absolutely not needed if you already own a 35mm. Save the money for something else, maybe an 85 f/1.8.
I actually have the 85/1.2 already.. but what I found is that all these primes are quite heavy...
thank you for all the input..
for now I'm sitting tight on the $199, and decided not to get the 40mm yet...
right now my main kit for walking for light set up, thrown in the bag that is not a serious photo outing, is my EP-1 + 20mm pancake... i was thinking maybe the 5DII with the pancake can by my thrown in the bag, for just in case.. but then it seems too big still.. then with the availability of 35 and 50.. I just couldn't find any fit for it in my kit..
.
), but has a good IQ.