TR Forums

Perot Museum in Dallas by John C. Tharp, on Flickr

These were transferred over WiFi to my Note and then uploaded with the Android Flikr app, with no processing done on my part. Most were shot in Tv with shutter speed set to 1/320 to guarantee sharp handheld shots, with the camera using all focus points to pick an aperture, with automatic ISO.

I'll go back and run these through Lightroom later, but I'm really liking just how well this cheap lens performs. The cheaper Nifty Fifty just wouldn't have cut it in the darker scenes, forcing you to manually focus with it's awful ring. Given the results above, I can definitely recommend skipping the 50mm F/1.8 and getting a wider FOV with the 40mm pancake, even if you do lose some light!


Snapshooter by John C. Tharp, on Flickr

Nice shot. Pancake lenses are really coming into their own. I should try my Sony in auto. I think I'm afraid it will do a better job than I will......

I really like the utility of a pancake. Mine is an Industar 50mm f/3.5, so it's old, manual focus and loses light compared to my Pentax Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8, but it's so easy to walk around with. The 40mm is definitely on my wish list, after a wide or ultra-wide prime, and a nicer zoom (maybe 17-85, just something with a slightly more useable range and better glass for hikes than my 18-55).

I dunno about the 'point and shoot' thing. My Fuji X-E1 with a 60MM 2.4 is 200 grams lighter than your camera all by it's self.

Works well though that's for sure. I like the slightly wide lens too. I will grab a the Fuji XF 23mm 1.4 for the 35mm FOV it allows when it comes out.

Nice shot and some of the others on the group site and from your Flikr site are pretty nice too. The horses are pretty good and I like your atmospherics.

Aside from the fact that the 6D is gigantic is absolute terms even though its pretty small for a full frame, I think the nifty fifty would had been better.

It's faster (f/1. and I never had any problems focusing with it on my 40D (even in really low light conditions).

All else equal, I can't see the value of the 50mm f/1.8 over a similar f/2.8 lens unless you really need the ability to pare the DOF down that low for special effects. IME if you can't shoot a wide-angle at a minimum of about f/3-f/3.5 using the available light and available ISO settings, you're probably not going to capture the image anyway.

I'd say that the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is significantly more hand-holdable. It's half a stop faster and it has optical image stabilization.

kumori wrote:

Aside from the fact that the 6D is gigantic is absolute terms even though its pretty small for a full frame, I think the nifty fifty would had been better.

It's faster (f/1. and I never had any problems focusing with it on my 40D (even in really low light conditions).

The 6D is the same size as my 60D, though slightly heavier; bigger than a Rebel for sure. But after using a T1i and picking up several Nikons, I can say that I wouldn't want anything smaller than the 6D/60D either. They got the ergonomics on those right!

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I'd say that the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is significantly more hand-holdable. It's half a stop faster and it has optical image stabilization.

It's a beauty, and I do like my very similar 24/2.8 IS, but it's definitely much heavier (and much more expensive). It's also longer, which is what makes the 40 pancake so nice; I got quite a bit less of the 'glare' from random people that I might get if I'd taken something like the 35/2 IS, let alone if I'd taken the 24-105/4 in.

I do agree that there are plenty of better lenses, but man, making something so unobtrusive, cheap, light, fast(er than economy zooms) and with such great image quality is notable. You figure you'd give up something to get what Canon put into this lens, but I can't really find any major compromises; it really is the 'body cap' lens. It should be on every Canon shooter's camera when stored.

Airmantharp wrote:

The cheaper Nifty Fifty just wouldn't have cut it in the darker scenes, forcing you to manually focus with it's awful ring.

I've not use the Canon 50mm prime, but why do you say that the 50/1.8 lens would have more trouble focussing than your 40/2.8 lens? Since SLRs focus with the aperture wide open, it should be able to focus more easily than your 40/2.8 in low light?

Anomymous Gerbil wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

The cheaper Nifty Fifty just wouldn't have cut it in the darker scenes, forcing you to manually focus with it's awful ring.

I've not use the Canon 50mm prime, but why do you say that the 50/1.8 lens would have more trouble focussing than your 40/2.8 lens? Since SLRs focus with the aperture wide open, it should be able to focus more easily than your 40/2.8 in low light?

Logically, the 50/1.8 makes sense; unfortunately, it just doesn't perform when pushed. When you need that wider 1.8 aperture it starts to hunt, and in this regard most people skip it for the 50/1.4. If you have the 50/1.4, the 50/1.8 no longer has a place in your bag, but that's not the point of this thread- even if you have the 50/1.4, there's a place for the 40/2.8 .