Do I need the 40mm pancake if I already have the 50mm?

[greenjackson16]

I love the 50mm on my 5D Mark III; I usually put it on my camera every day when I go out. The only problem is that sometimes I find the angle is a little too tight. The main reason I would get the 40mm is because it would be a wider angle. Would it be a waste to get the 40mm if I already have the 50mm? Thanks for the help

Jackson

 

[Dao]

Do you have any other lens that can zoom to 40mm and see if that good enough for you?

 

[lennon33x]

I had the same predicament. I was upgrading to FF and wanted to get an additional lens to my 50. I actually did the math and found out that it's somewhat negligible for what you gain. Consider the 35mm f/2. It's faster, has significantly better optics and, if you can find it used, is only about $100 more.

 

[EIngerson]

Why not? Retail motivation is just as good as any other type. lol

 

[Lumens]

I must admit I have had the same question, but for a different reason. I have been a zoom freak for a long time, but found the "nifty Fifty" as a prime lens delivers much better detail and quality image than my zoom lenses. So I want something more of a 50mm lens - as I shoot with a 7D the nifty fifty is really a "Nifty Eighty". I have been looking at the 40mm pancake and the 35mm f2. The Sigma 30 f2 has been getting some good reviews as well. Don't we love to suffer from our GAS! (LOL) My concern is the same - How much difference is 64mm to 80 or 50? Only about half way there for me. I am guessing 28 -35mm may be more what we are looking for.

 

[tirediron]

My basic philosophy is that if that the company wouldn't make a piece of gear if I didn't need it... therefore...



I wouldn't say the 40mm would be a 'waste of time', but I don't think the relatively minor difference in focal length is enough to warrant the purchase of the lens, UNLESS you know that you have a specific requirement for a 40mm lens.

 

[TheFantasticG]

I love 40mm 2.8 on my 60D for the weight savings at almost no cost to IQ (IMO of course) it is such a light combo. I was thinking today I wish I would have taken that combo to the Texas Ren Fest instead of the Tamron 90mm on my D7k (as I lent my 24-120mm F4 to use). I was just planning on taking snaps of the family and a few randoms and that's it so I didn't need a lot of reach but lots of DoF.

 

[rexbobcat]

I would definitely consider a 35mm instead of a 40mm.

1. 35mm is much more "standard", so if you switch systems or upgrade to higher quality glass you know that there's an equivalent. This way, your photographic eye will already be used to it.
2. The cheapest 35mm lens is faster than the 40mm.
3. The difference between 40-50mm isn't all that much, and with the high MP count of the 5D you can easily crop the difference between 35mm and 40mm without very much resolution loss. However, if the 40mm isn't wide enough, you can't get the detail that's outside of the frame back...because it doesn't exist.

Just my thoughts. I use a 24mm lens on my Canon 1D Mark II, which is approx. a 35mm equivalent with the 3x crop factor. I really like the look.

 

[manaheim]

Honestly?

Only YOU know what you need and don't need.

If you can't decide if you need it or not, than you should think more about your requirements. Or... more accurately... unless you've said to yourself "Gee, I like this lens but I really need it 25% tighter", then the answer should be pretty clear.

Keep your money for a tool that you KNOW you need.

 

[Derrel]

I had the same predicament. I was upgrading to FF and wanted to get an additional lens to my 50. I actually did the math and found out that it's somewhat negligible for what you gain. Consider the 35mm f/2. It's faster, has significantly better optics and, if you can find it used, is only about $100 more.

I didn't think Canon's 40mm pancake was THAT poor, optically...

Quality issues not considered, if a 50mm is too narrow in angle, then a shorter lens would solve the problem. See, that's the deal with primes--"one" is never enough...often two, or even three lenses, are needed. Primes are one-trick ponies.

 

[lennon33x]

I didn't think Canon's 40mm pancake was THAT poor, optically... Quality issues not considered, if a 50mm is too narrow in angle, then a shorter lens would solve the problem. See, that's the deal with primes--"one" is never enough...often two, or even three lenses, are needed. Primes are one-trick ponies.

Ok, I agree it's not poor. But consider this...

The Rokinon 35mm f/1.4.

Optically as good as, if not better, than the Canon L version. About $350-400. I'll trade the MF for better optics

 

[Derrel]

After the LensRentals.com release of their 2012-2013 failure rates, I am afraid to buy any lens that's sold as a Rokinon, Bower, or Samyang. Same low-priced lenses, sold worldwide under a zillion names... here's a screen capture I made from Lensrentals.com's article...the way they WROTE IT this summer...since August, they have removed all reference to Rokinon, since Bower and Samyang are also using the same products with their names slapped on the rings as the orders come in from various wholesalers around the world.



A lens that might last only eight WEEKS before needing to be repaired? Ummm, no thanks, at any price.

 

[lennon33x]

Interesting. I'll keep that in mind.

I just bought the 85mm used from KEH. At least I have a 6 month warranty.

Nonetheless, thanks for the info.

*sticks in back pocket*

 

[Derrel]

The six-month warranty on used lenses makes KEH.com a good place from which to purchase lenses of questionable heritage.

 

[lennon33x]

I wanted to post these yesterday, but didn't have the time. So here's the difference, mathematically speaking, in a 10mm focal length difference.

For a subject, whose Field of View is located on the far left, it compares the relative working distances (i.e. the distance from the sensor to the subject) between the 40mm and the 50mm

[TABLE="width: 302"]
[TR]
[TD]FOV Ft[/TD]
[TD]WD Ft (40mm)[/TD]
[TD]WD Ft (50mm)[/TD]
[TD]WD Ft (35mm)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]11.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]14.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]17.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]21.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]15.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]23.0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]28.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]20.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Based on these numbers (and yes I have tried them out to verify their accuracy (I did it with a 50 and an 85)), there is not a significant difference in working distance until about 10 feet. When you want a field of view of 5 ft and you're shooting with a 50mm, and you want the FOV for the 40mm, you only have to step back about 18 inches. At 10 feet, there is a significant difference, in that if you want the same FOV on a 50mm that you would want on a 40mm, you have to step back 3,4, or 5 feet.

Just for funsies, I threw in the 35mm working distance too. Also, remember that wide angles increase distortion and change perspective.