Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RISadler

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM ...

Recommended Posts

RISadler    10
RISadler

Apparently it'll be available locally by next month (August 2012) ... guess we're not that much of a photographic back-water anymore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler

Got it! Brilliant little chap, this! And it works perfectly on my EOS 300v ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jphotography    10
jphotography

Upload some images you took with it, I am also interested in getting one. How much are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler

Initial impression ...

 

I've only used the lens a few times ...

 

Usability - This lens will not be used all that often on my EOS 30D's as the FoVCF makes my EF 24mm f/2.8 more suitable as a "go-anywhere" prime lens on these cameras. It is, however, considerably smaller than the 24mm and has much better "macro" capabilities. And it will definitely be the lens to use when I need something more "standard" in focal length and my EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM is just too huge ... and obtrusive! But it is on my EOS 3 and EOS 300v (film) cameras that I just love this little rascal to bits! The 40mm is considerably wider than the standard 50mm (55mm for us old Pentax Spotmatic users), yet not as wide and distancing as the 35mm lens. If I had a FF DSLR, this would be the lens practically super-glued onto it.

 

Picture - Definitely not L-glass, this. I've found that I can always spot the difference between the "Ugly Ducklings," L-glass and the current "consumer" lenses by the saturation of the blue. The former two lens types all produce rich, dark blues; whereas the latter gives a washed-out blueish-like white. This lens falls in the latter category. Although semi-easy to fix in post-processing, it is rather a shame - especially since I don't "post" my photos. Given what I photograph, I generally use f/8 to f/16 and in this range the lens is sufficiently sharp. Not as sharp as my EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact-Macro by a longshot, but certainly a tad sharper than the 28-70mm. But then sharpness has never really been important to me ... however, distortion is and this lens has very little of it.

 

Negatives - Adding a filter increases the length of the lens by as little as one-fifth; no full-time manual focus; and not environmentally sealed - this is probably my biggest gripe.

 

Conclusion - The EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is a lens that I will recommend whole-heartedly as (1) a replacement for the non-L kit lens sold with lower-end DSLR cameras; (2) a replacement for the Nifty-fifty and/or Standard-fifty, provided you don't need a sub-f/2.8 aperture; (3) as an unobtrusive lens for use at functions, parties, etc., or where you specifically don't want to lug around big expensive lenses; and (4), if you still shoot film (occassionally), then yes, yes ,yes! Otherwise, you'll probably soon be bored.

D010140.jpg.3c0b0df167604f3005fdc555486a710f.jpg

D010163.jpg.f21100eecc098ecb61fdcfe3bc9a1a83.jpg

D010090.JPG.350df1182cb9446c2d33aea15d567979.JPG

D010089.jpg.63122f6cba1256f4fdbc8f310b24cd38.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jphotography    10
jphotography

Thanks for the write up and pictures, not a big difference between the 40 and 50mm, have to admit, I also love my 24mm lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RISadler    10
RISadler

I like the 40mm ... mainly because I don't have a "standard" prime lens for my film cameras. (The 50mm macro is slightly too large and focus is terribly slow!)

 

What's your opinion of the new 24mm with the IS, is it really necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×