Pentax has their pancake lenses. And now, so does Olympus.
Isn't it about time Canon got off its butt and came out with a tiny EF-S pancake lens to pair up with those tiny Digital Rebel bodies? Take advantage of the benefits of the APS-C format for a change. Such a setup wouldn't be much bigger than a Sigma DP1 with an Optical Viewfinder mounted.
I don't think Canon could make a pancake lens (Well not a AF version) as the Pentax pancake lenses are screw driven (The AF motor is in the camera body and not the lens). I could be wrong though.
EOS20 wrote:
I don't think Canon could make a pancake lens (Well not a AF version) as the Pentax pancake lenses are screw driven (The AF motor is in the camera body and not the lens). I could be wrong though.
Pixel Perfect wrote
No EF-S pancakes, EF pancakes. 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8 pancake would be sweet.
Yes, I think EF pancakes would be more welcome than EF-S pancakes. Many 5D users including myself would love to just mount a thin, yet good quality prime on it, at times. I have no prime in the standard range, and I do not see myself buying one unless it is really small. I would probably be ready to sacrifice AF for that if the problem comes from AF motor, but I would still want to keep metering.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But Oly's pancake isn't screw driven.
I only saw the new model just after I posted that. Hmm Interesting, Well in that case I would like to see Canon give us a whole new range of updated "Clunker" primes in USM pancake format!!
Xavier Rival wrote:
Yes, I think EF pancakes would be more welcome than EF-S pancakes.
I don't know about that. Full frame bodies are already so bulky, I don't think it matters much whether you put a 1" long pancake lens on it, or put a 2" long regular prime lens on it (like the 35 f2 or 50 f1.8.)
But on a smaller body like the Olympus E420 or Canon D-Rebel, the effect of a pancake lens would be more significant. The set up would be small enough to fit into a coat pocket, or even a reasonably sized belt pouch.
Edited by Rubber Soul on Mar 05, 2008 at 11:27 AM GMT
Confused over advantages to these things I can't see why mounting such a thin lens would be desirable over a standard lens? EF-S, yeah ok, but having something to hang on to on the front of the camera is kind of nice, is it not?
Just curious...
dan
If am I not mistaken, you can only make a pancake lens when you don't need retrofocus. That basically rules out anything shorter than 44mm, because that is the distance between the lens flange and sensor in Canon (D)SLRs. EF-S would give you a few mm less, but nothing like 1.6.
It cannot be much longer, either, because as the lens length follows the focal length minus 44mm, it would soon become rather long. A 100mm lens would be 56mm thick at least.
Thus, a 50mm pancake lens should be possible. A USM ring motor should not take much space, either, lengthwise, it should fit it as well.
The final question is image quality - I would not want to use one unless it had at least similar IQ to existing primes in the range. I could give up speed to f2 but no more. If those parameters are satisfied, I would be interested - depending on the price, though.
I would consider something like this, but size is not really an issue for me - a 20D and 50 1.4 is a tiny camera for me. Heck, I'd call a 1D body and 35L small too. After shooting a 400 2.8L IS or 300-800 5.6, anything lighter than a 300 2.8 is a small, lightweight lens....
As for Canon making a lens like this....doubtful... If the above is true, then we might get a 45mm lens, maybe up to 60-70mm. Not that I'd complain of a small, fast lens for that FL...but it'd likely be a normal lens, and Canon has a 50 1.8II, 50 1.4, 50 2.5, 50 1.2 currently available. Would they make yet another 50mm lens? If so, would it be any cheaper than the 50 1.4? If so, would it be better than the 1.8?
Personally, if I wanted an ultimate lightweight kit, I'd just get a 50 1.8, which is pretty tiny. I can live with the slow AF...not that I wouldn't welcome an even smaller, USM, 45mm f/2 lens into my camera bag....though a 35 2 or 28 1.8 would probably be a better choice for the times I'd want a lens like this....
Both Canon and Nikon used to make pancake lenses. I Canon made them in the FL series (I can check later) and Nikon made two versions within the last 10 years. I've seen the Nikon lenses for sale and they seem to be popular selling for around $400-$500 depending on color (silver/black).
I'd go for a pancake lens in a heartbeat. the Pentax lenses always appealed to me and they would make and camera more of a stealth street camera. I'm all for it.
Oh yeah, Forget it if they're EF-S lenses. EF would work on all bodies, and there's no reason to limit the lenses to the bottom of the food chain.
i am not sure whether i would want ultra light and ultra tiny lenses.
i mean a dslr is not really light, not even the rebel series is what a normal person would consider a lightweight. so why would you want to save weight and size when it comes to lenses? i mean as long as you are not using the big badass canon primes or the 100-400mm lens, you will not really be in trouble, neither weight nor size wise.
additionally i like it when my lens counterweighs the camera. i already felt a little awkward shooting with the 18-55mm kit lens as it is really light which does not really make the kit setup very balanced.
in my opinion heavier cameras and glass ensure better handling and much better control over the camera being stable when handheld. and just imagine trying to manually focus and zoom with such a tiny lens when you've got huge hands...sounds quite uncomfortable to me.
c00kiem0nster wrote:
and just imagine trying to manually focus and zoom with such a tiny lens when you've got huge hands...
A pancake lens would not be a zoom. So, only focusing, then. Ever tried manual focus with the 50f1.8 II? The focusing ring is just a joke, but the lens still sells like hot cakes.
Personally I am not fond of such lenses and would not buy one even if they were available but if you are willing to go MF, there are plenty of options.
Rubber Soul wrote:
I don't know about that. Full frame bodies are already so bulky, I don't think it matters much whether you put a 1" long pancake lens on it, or put a 2" long regular prime lens on it (like the 35 f2 or 50 f1.8.)
I can see at least two cases:
- low light, lightweight photography: I want the FF sensor to get better ISO performance. A light prime is an asset. A smaller lens also makes handholding easier.
- photo trip, where space and weight are constrained (for instance hike, or flights). Then I know I will take two good lenses, for the short and the long end, since photography is important for me. Now the question is: will I add a standard prime in a pocket, to add to a choice to the fun. For the answer to be yes, it needs to be light and thin (so that it does not require more bag.
In all cases, I see now that I want full frame for quality, better ISO performance, higher DoF control, etc.
I'm not sure it is possible with the wide angles you suggest due to the retrofocus design of wide angle lenses on DSLRs. That said, I used to own Pentax ME and MX bodies and - among other lenses - the 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" lens. It was really a very cool lens - small but very high quality.
If I were a big time prime shooter (I use them, but mostly use zooms) I could sure see the value in popping a lens like that on a DSLR with a small body for certain types of shooting.
Dan
Rubber Soul wrote:
Pentax has their pancake lenses. And now, so does Olympus.
Isn't it about time Canon got off its butt and came out with a tiny EF-S pancake lens to pair up with those tiny Digital Rebel bodies? Take advantage of the benefits of the APS-C format for a change. Such a setup wouldn't be much bigger than a Sigma DP1 with an Optical Viewfinder mounted.
