Choices..Canon 50 1.8 or the 40 2.8???

[SAWYER]

I used to have the 1,8, loved it but I got a killer deal on the 1.4 so I sold the 1.8. I decided the 1.4 was not worth it so I sold it and I am either going to get the 1.8 or the 40, what would you choose?

 

[Paladin3]

The 40mm focuses closer, but I'd rather have the extra stop and a third of light you can get out of the 50mm. Not to mention the 50mm is cheaper. But that's just my personal opinion, budget and shooting style.

Just remember that nobody will ooooh or ahhhh over a putzy 50mm lens like they will over the new pancake 40!

 

[slashbinslashbash]

It's a tough call. I really see them as being complements rather than replacements. Maybe if the 40mm was a stop faster at f/2.0, there would be more of a comparison, but they really are 2 different lenses. Especially on a crop body -- 50mm is too long for many applications, but 40mm is almost wide enough to be considered normal. And f/2.8 isn't fast enough for the truly low-light situations where sub-f/2.0 lenses really shine. The 40/2.8 is designed for size/portability, to be moderately fast, and to be a "reasonably close to normal" lens for both crop and full-frame bodies. (Oh, and the special motor for shooting video.) The 50/1.8 was designed as a fast, cheap normal lens for full-frame, and doubles as an excellent portrait lens for crop.

Flip a coin? Or weigh the kind of shooting you do and what your desires are? Unless you have truly tired of the size+weight of your body and lens, I'd probably go with the 50mm as it is still super light, reasonably compact, over a stop faster, and half the price.

 

[Cattykit]

If I were using a FF body, I'd go for 40mm f/2.8 without a moment of hesitation. If I was using an APS-C body, I'd give it a thought and still go for 40mm f/2.8.

 

[AkumaX]

If I were using a FF body, I'd go for 40mm f/2.8 without a moment of hesitation. If I was using an APS-C body, I'd give it a thought and still go for 40mm f/2.8.

This! Going to be a lot of fun on my 5D2 😀

But as far as being on an APS-C frame? I'd think a little longer... 😉

 

[Lemon law]

Back in the days of 35mm film, a 50 mm lens was regarded as a " normal lens ", and still is for far more expensive full size Canon sensors. And in 35 mm film days, those lens with focal lengths of more than 50 MM were regarded as telephoto lens, and those shorter were wide angle lens. And the greater diverge from 50 mm, the greater the effects were. At least in terms of prime lens of one focal length.

But still, prime lens have two virtues compared to variable focal length lens. They are faster at wide open aperture( even if the debth of field may be almost nothing ) and tend to be sharper. But still, if you have a C sized sensor, your 40MM if still an 35 film equivalent of 64 MM and your 50mm is a 80mm. Leaving me to ask, what do you have a for a wide angle lens in your kit bag?

 

[RobDickinson]

f2.8 isnt fast for a prime though.

The pancake is looking a very decent lens. Would I take one instead of a 50/1.8? Possibly....but I think I would go for the 1.8

 

[elitejp]

I just dont see what a pancake lens has to offer. Its not like your camera is now small and you can put it in your pocket. My advice is save the money and pick up the faster 50mm.

 

[swanysto]

I shoot a lot inside, so the extra stops of the 50mm really benefit me. However, even if that weren't the case, I still think I would go with the 50mm as I can't see paying the extra $100 when I can step back 2-3 steps for free. To each his own.

 

[corkyg]

What I find interesting is that both the 50mm f/1.8 II and the 40mm f/2.8 Pancake weigh the same - 4.6 oz.! So, there's no difference in "portability." So, for me, the decider is cost. As is mentioned above, a few footsteps equalizes the focal length.

 

[twistedlogic]

I'd choose the 40 f2.8.

Sharper @ f2.8 than any Canon 50mm, closer focusing, all metal construction, full manual focus override, much smaller in size, 7 curved aperture blades (40mm) vs the 5 non rounded aperture blades (50mm).

I find 50mm a bit too long for indoors, and @ 1.8-2.0 focus is always hit or miss anyway, so I stay @ 2.8 unless I really need the light. Also in the future, if you really need to pick up a 50 1.8, they are one of the easiest lenses to find used.

 

[happysmiles]

40mm hands down

 

[K6-III]

40 f2.8

 

[Madwand1]

50 f/1.8, because the 40 f/2.8 wouldn't make the body any smaller and would limited flexibility, so I'd have a 24-105 f/4 L with me anyways, and would have few situations where I'd want to switch to the 40 f/2.8. The 50 f/1.8 I could still use for more light and shallower DOF, although a 50 f/1.4 would be a bit better.