IanMessengerPhotography wrote:
Hi,

I'm looking at buying the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens as a compromise between a 35mm and 50mm (can't justify getting both of them!)

I was wondering if anyone here had any experience of this lens? It would be great to see some sample images on MM

Regards

Did you know, if you have a 35mm lens on your camera, you can simulate having a 50mm lens by simply stepping toward your subject?

Just a thought

Locutus wrote:

Did you know, if you have a 35mm lens on your camera, you can simulate having a 50mm lens by simply stepping toward your subject?

Just a thought

except that the foreground-background compression / FOV is completely different.

Karl JW Johnston wrote:
I find it extremely sharp and autofocus to be very fast, a lot quieter than the thrifty fifty

and it takes up less space in a bag!

I find the 50 1.8 absolutely horrible build quality.
I got rid of it within a couple of weeks of buying

What would you expect from a lens under $100? Titanium?

Marin Photography NYC wrote:

What would you expect from a lens under $100? Titanium?

I share Karl's opinion. I have owned 2 of the metal mount first issue 50 1.8 and two all plastic nifty fiftys. I buy and sell cameras and gear and keep some of the good stuff as "profit". I have never been tempted to keep a Canon 50 1.8.

They may well be cheap and sharp but those are the only good things you can say about them. In my opinion the plastic version is overpriced. Slow, noisy, inaccurate autofocus, manual focus is a bad joke, the out of focus areas look harsh and jittery and the overall feeling of flimsy construction is uninspiring.

I've never missed them, glad I sold them all. I've never tried the 40 2.8 but it gets uniformly good reviews.

IMHO the best budget 50mm for Canon by far is the 50 2.5 macro. It does tend to focus-wander but it is sharp wide open and the bokeh is much better than the 1.8.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
What would you expect from a lens under $100? Titanium?

Super takumar 50 1.4 you can get for way cheaper, and those lenses are a dream to use. I have one on my pentax spotmatic IB

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews … -F1.4.html

With an m42 to eos mount you can use them I believe


Can get a lot on the cheap, if you look around

I dunno what lenses are made of in particular, though the 50 1.8 is definitely got a plastic feel to it.

The main thing I like about the 40 is it seems to be the same 'field of view' i get with an eye...as in, when I look at a subject, it looks like I'm looking at the same field of view through a 40 mm perspective (on full frame)

But it's still a very cheap lens, they don't make them like those old film lenses.. the closest you can get to that kind of feel is in 50 mm Carl Zeiss...and I think that one is like a grand, I have the 21 ZE, and it's a TANK

Noncho wrote:
Traveling:

Snap that's wicked...helicopter shot?

IanMessengerPhotography wrote:
Thank you all for your replies!

Definitely sold on the lens now.

It is a WOW lens!

Here some more, on another thread:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=926287

.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
I share Karl's opinion. I have owned 2 of the metal mount first issue 50 1.8 and two all plastic nifty fiftys. I buy and sell cameras and gear and keep some of the good stuff as "profit". I have never been tempted to keep a Canon 50 1.8.

They may well be cheap and sharp but those are the only good things you can say about them. In my opinion the plastic version is overpriced. Slow, noisy, inaccurate autofocus, manual focus is a bad joke, the out of focus areas look harsh and jittery and the overall feeling of flimsy construction is uninspiring.

I've never missed them, glad I sold them all. I've never tried the 40 2.8 but it gets uniformly good reviews.

IMHO the best budget 50mm for Canon by far is the 50 2.5 macro. It does tend to focus-wander but it is sharp wide open and the bokeh is much better than the 1.8.

I never had an issue with a nifty fifty at all..I have had the same one for 6yrs. Rarely use it but it works great.

Again with the plastic comments and my response is the same...what do you expect from an $86 lens???...LOL It's a cheap prime lens that really can't be beat for the price. I would argue that it's very sharp but if you have a bad copy well that's what it is and or it wasn't calibrated to the camera.  Many people don't do it and wonder why they have issues. All of my lenses are calibrated to each camera.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:

I never had an issue with a nifty fifty at all..I have had the same one for 6yrs. Rarely use it but it works great.

Again with the plastic comments and my response is the same...what do you expect from an $86 lens???...LOL It's a cheap prime lens that really can't be beat for the price. I would argue that it's very sharp but if you have a bad copy well that's what it is and or it wasn't calibrated to the camera.  Many people don't do it and wonder why they have issues. All of my lenses are calibrated to each camera.

I said it was sharp. I had 4 of them and they were all sharp. Out of focus areas looked like crap on all 4 as well. The metal mount version is probably worth $86, the plastic one is maybe worth about $35.

Glad you love yours, maybe it is one I used to own. Now we are both happy.