« Old Newspaper Archives | Main | L'Affaire de Emily White »

Thursday, 21 June 2012

Comments

me too, (checking my bank account aarrgh i can afford it) i got enough lenses as it is (trying desperately to stop myself from ordering)

Let the credit card down slowly and keep your hands up (says my conscience)

Shut up i say i want it

I think I'm safe . . . I don't have a Canon camera ;o)

I caved last night after the dealers here in Sydney hadn't heard anything from Canon Australia about the lens - on it's way from HongKong... hopefully

now if only i had a 1dx to put it on :)

The trick is to promise yourself to have another look at buying the lens in a week or so. Put it on your calendar, (its not going to run away, after all). When the times comes, re-evaluate whether you want it. If you do, buy it. Most times your subconscious will have persuaded you that you don't need it. It won't be so hard, then, to not buy it. David. (its also called "sleeping on it", the decision, I mean!)

Mike, since when do you own a Canon?

OK Canon users can now discover what Pentax shooters like me have enjoyed for years. Still I think this new Canon doesn't look as sexy as my DA 40mm Ltd although I have no doubt it should perform as good.

Maybe people will begin to stop disparaging this focal length. I love it on APS-C no matter what the general wisdom says about its supposed awkwardness.

Do you have a Canon EF mount camera, Mike? I thought you were all micro four-thirds.

Besides, you don't need another lens.

For argument's sake, how many lenses is enough lenses?

grabbed mine a couple days ago. really like it so far! quality is very nice for the price, and it's so small it barely sticks out further than the grip of the camera. basically like carrying the body only.

not that you should care though, as you already have enough lenses.

I've always loved 40mm lenses, and I was actually considering buying the Voightlander 40, which I still may because I love to manually focus. But it's really nice to see this lens appear.

40mm is too damn long as a prime lens for a 1.6X camera, and too short for a full frame. Where is a 30mm pancake?

We wants it, yes, we wants it and we means to have it, yes, Precious! (Gollum, gollum!)

With best regards.

Stephen

"Do you have a Canon EF mount camera, Mike?"

A film one, but yes.

Mike

Whata you mean, it's too short for full frame. I've never been a 50 fan and 35 is just a compromise if a 40 is not available. Before I got the older Pentax 40 2.8 I'd walk around with two Contax cameras with a 35 1.4 and 85 1.4. When I got the Pentax 40 with a LX, I found that was all I needed for a walk around kit. I wish I could afford a 5D Mk II or III so I could use it with the new Canon 40.

one n e v e r has enough lenses Mike. Come on! ;-)

"A film one"...

wish you hadn't said that.

It'd make a perfect street shooting lens on my EOS RT... do you still have yours?

A firm lover of Canon's cheapo 50mm f1.8, I had often wondered how could Canon make a better lens for a comparable price. Answer: make it smaller. I think I am in love (or, at least, in lust).

Shame I already have enough lenses.

Bill Mitchell writes: "40mm is too damn long as a prime lens for a 1.6X camera, and too short for a full frame."

Bill, as PDQ Capa, the cousin of Robert, said: if your lens is not short enough, you're not far enough (or vice-versa).
Seriously, my Nikon 45mm f/2.8P would refuse to ever leave my D7000, except to be reunited with the FM3A it was created for. So I had to cave in and get the Ultron 40mm. (But they're still jealous.)

As a matter of interest, how many clicks on Mike's sponsor adverts would it take for the TOP community to generate enough cash for Mike to just buy one without affecting his monthly budget? Perhaps we could have a 24 hour clicking campaign, just for Mike's sanity...

I'm at work, so I am very much not going to click on Domai, I have however clicked on the B&H link in the main post, despite owning a Nikon.

"For argument's sake, how many lenses is enough lenses?"

Answer: there is no limit. We all enjoy just owning a lens "because it's there". I don't have any Olympus 4/3 gear, but I lust after that 45mm or the 12-24mm or those ... y'know. I have Contax G film bodies and lenses, which I no longer use FGS. These are things of beauty, beyond mere items in the bag.

Naa, you can have too many lenses but never enough! :))

I already have the 50mm f1.8 - can somebody explain to me the differences between the two? What would this one be better for?

I am not sure how to articulate this..? I have ordered the canon pancake with a view to use on my Canon 20D; I recaptured a Canon A2E for film purposes; also an adaptor for Olympus legacy lenses on MFT. Do I need help or better bokeh definition?

A used 5D goes for about $700 or so on your side of the pond, Mike. Still produces good results. (Sorry.)

"You never can have enough accessories" (Joanne Lumley in Absolutely Fabulous)

But I wonder: is this really a useful focal length, either on FF or on APS-C?

I don't see the attraction, at all. Especially at f/2.8, which is horribly slow for a prime (they make some zooms that fast!).

"Inexpensive"...
$199 in the USA, £229 in the UK.

Mike, this is the post that launched a thousand purchases for me (first a Voigtlander Bessa with the 40mm lens, then a Leica M2 with Summicron DR 50 and a Zeiss 35/2, and so on). So I am expecting you to purchase that lens and update the article ;-).

Cool lens. 40mm is close to the 42mm "standard" on 135, and 60-something millimeters on aps-c isn't bad, either (as Pentax users know.)


Now, if Canon (or anyone) could put a 35mm digital sensor in a small DSLR, we'd really have something. I don't mean 60D or D7000 small. I mean 1970's SLR small. Then I'd be tempted to reverse course on my current collection of all mirrorless cameras.

Having wrestled with the question of what is the most useful single focal length on 35mm film/sensors for three decades now, I can tell you my conclusion: 40mm or a few mm longer. Buy a 5D and this lens and be done with it!

A two hundred dollar body cap!

Gee I just sold all all my Canon cameras except for an old 1Ds ( previously owned by "the world's happiest man" ! ) and I have about 20 or so lenses in the 40 - 50mm range, so I guess I'll pass.

Mike what you really ought to get for $200 is one of the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 or 19mm f/2.8 lenses for your u4/3. I've been using the 30mm f/2.8 on my nex and it is as good as any lens I've used and it's autofocus. A really wonderful lens.

If you're really hankering for this lens, Mike, don't let the fact that you don't own a digital Canon body stop you, as Redrock Micro sells a "LiveLens MFT Active Lens Mount" that will let you use Canon EF lenses with electronically controlled apertures on your m4/3 camera body:

http://store.redrockmicro.com/Catalog/featured/livelensmft

Although it's a bit clunky, size-wise, it works! (I know, because I have one ... don't ask me why, though.)

Although 1.5 stops slower, it has much better mtf than the canon 50/1.8. The fact it is so much smaller is impressive too. Canon could make the ef 50/1.8 about half the depth it currently is ifthey really wanted too though.

40mm is a nice focal length of fullframe 35mm body. Mike clearly likes that length too, I sold him an OM 40/2 at one point in the past. I like that length too, the mamiya 7 with the 80mm is fairly equivalent, I think, as far as field of view.

I had a brief play with one today at my local camera store in Perth, Western Australia....definitely tempted to buy one!

Mike,

I'm a long time reader of your posts, both on this site and on the then special column The Sunday Morning Photographer on the Luminous Landscape. I recall you have a very good and impressive post called Why 40mm, and at the very end you say, "the 40mm true normal might be, as Sally Mann said to me, about right."

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html

I'd be very glad to see you get this cute lens. You know, it's not only about right. It's is right. ;)

Best wishes.

Frank

A 40mm lens for a full-frame camera closely approximates the field of view of the human eye and that's what I favor. I am awaiting my EF 40mm for my 5D.

Similarly afflicted but different vendor. I've reached back a few years and channel Nancy Reagan's vibes, "Just say no"... :)

The comments to this entry are closed.