Canon 40mm Pancake: Okay, Pentax, time to wake up on lens pricing!

mattdm · 06-21-2012, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Very strange because the lens design is preciesly the same, the only thing that's different is that the XS has SP coating i believe.

That's probably quality control and sample variation. And, kudos to Canon because the new lens looks to do very well on that front: LensRentals.com - Canon 40mm Pancake – How Did They Do That??

Anvh · 06-22-2012, 02:31 AM

Looks good, sadly.

iangreenhalgh · 06-22-2012, 01:45 PM

Good to see a prime lens coming to market instead of yet another zoom.

borno · 06-22-2012, 02:52 PM

I should get mine Monday

I figure it will be handy to stick in a pocket as a complement to a telephoto lens.

mattdm · 06-23-2012, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

Looks good, sadly.

Time to step back and re-evaluate your priorities, here.

More great lenses with good quality control is happy, not sad! Even if they're not from Pentax.

Anvh · 06-23-2012, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by mattdm

Time to step back and re-evaluate your priorities, here.

More great lenses with good quality control is happy, not sad! Even if they're not from Pentax.

Depends on which priorities you're talking about.

builttospill · 06-23-2012, 08:04 AM

Canon builds a decent camera or two, but I would rather shoot Pentax or Nikon. But my problem here is having "good quality control" and "Canon lens" without the L in the same sentence. Isn't that an oxymoron?

iangreenhalgh · 06-24-2012, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by builttospill

Canon builds a decent camera or two, but I would rather shoot Pentax or Nikon. But my problem here is having "good quality control" and "Canon lens" without the L in the same sentence. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Sounds like an oxymoron to me, I had two copies of the 18-55 kit lens fall apart on me after a few months of use, and before they fell apart, the AF on both failed. I had a 1.8/50 too and that came apart in my hands when manually focussing it.

Needless to say, I'm not a Canon shooter anymore, I don't like nasty plastic toys.

jakeblues · 06-24-2012, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by borno

I should get mine Monday

I figure it will be handy to stick in a pocket as a complement to a telephoto lens.

I'm planning to order one as well. I shoot pentax much more than I shoot canon, but this lens is pretty irresistable for my FF canon film SLR.

Blue · 06-24-2012, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Limited = Limited, with a corresponding build quality. If price is your main concern, then by all means buy the DA40XS which is a true pancake because it has one third the length and half the weight of the Canon

The Canon is priced cheaper than the XS and also has a metal mount. The Canon lens has a lot of similarity in optical layout to the Voigtlander 40/2 and it apparently performs in that league. So this is a kick in the nads for the Ricoh boys. Canon >

< Ricoh

I just wish Canon would release this 40 in Pentax mount.

iangreenhalgh · 06-24-2012, 09:18 PM

It's a real shame you can't put a Konica Hexanon 1.8/40 on a Pentax body because that is a really great lens, a true pancake and I bet it beats this Canon in IQ terms, and it's a very well built lens too, which I doubt this Canon is. The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is excellent too, but again, no use to Pentax shooters. The Praktica 2.4/50 pancake is very good and with a bit of fiddling will work on a Pentax body, it's available for peanuts so if you don't mind a bit of DIY is definitely worth looking at. You just have to file down the flanges by 0.4mm to make it fit a K mount, the tricky bit is adjusting it for infinity as the register is a wee bit shorter, it can be done though.

jakeblues · 06-25-2012, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by iangreenhalgh

The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is excellent too, but again, no use to Pentax shooters.

I have the MD 45/2 adapted for canon, and it doesn't make me any less interested in the Canon 40/2.8. They're completely different lenses. Again, as an avid pentax shooter (my favorite camera system of my 3 SLR systems), I think the Canon 40/2.8 looks to be an excellent value and a potential best seller.

creampuff · 06-25-2012, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by iangreenhalgh

The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is excellent too, but again, no use to Pentax shooters.

I was once a dedicated Minolta user once and had an extensive collection of Minolta glass. The MD 45mm f/2 was just mediocre.

iangreenhalgh · 06-25-2012, 05:37 AM

Hi Jake. I don't get your point, sorry, of course they are different lenses. How did you adapt the Minolta? Do you get infinity? If so, is it using a glassed adapter?

Originally posted by creampuff

I was once a dedicated Minolta user once and had an extensive collection of Minolta glass. The MD 45mm f/2 was just mediocre.

That's just your opinion, I like it very much.

jakeblues · 06-27-2012, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

I was once a dedicated Minolta user once and had an extensive collection of Minolta glass. The MD 45mm f/2 was just mediocre.

I actually like the 45/2 quite a bit. And I suppose to justify this, I should say that I have the 24, 35 1.8, 58 1.2, and 85 1.7. The 45 just has a pleasant charm that I can't resist. And I mean that I find its IQ charming; not just it's size and handling.

Here's a shot with the lens:

Originally posted by iangreenhalgh

Hi Jake. I don't get your point, sorry, of course they are different lenses.

My point was that you seemed to suggest that the Canon wouldn't be as good as the other lenses you were listing, and I wanted to chime in and say that I haven't used one, but from the sample photos I've seen users post, it has a lot of character, and high IQ. Character is probably the primary reason I'll buy a lens. Also, you said this:

Originally posted by iangreenhalgh

it's a very well built lens too, which I doubt this Canon is

Again, I haven't used the EF 40, but those that have seem to think it's well built.

Originally posted by iangreenhalgh

How did you adapt the Minolta? Do you get infinity? If so, is it using a glassed adapter?

I adapted it myself using an m42-EOS mount and an AF confirm chip. I hacksawed the Minolta mount off, preserving the baseplate because the aperture mechanics are attached. I then sanded the mount plate as thin as I could get it. I drilled holes in the m42 adapter to match the minolta screwholes, and sanded it down as thin as I could get it. I then screwed them together, took off the faceplate to adjust for infinity, and bingo.

Here's a shot of the back.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rebel T4i and Canon 40mm Pancake Launched	Adam	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	06-09-2012 11:19 AM
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake coming?	RioRico	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	11	05-24-2012 08:41 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 40mm f2.8 Pancake Lens	DDoram	Sold Items	3	02-12-2012 12:03 PM

06-21-2012, 08:30 PM	#121
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948 Original Poster	Originally posted by Anvh Very strange because the lens design is preciesly the same, the only thing that's different is that the XS has SP coating i believe. That's probably quality control and sample variation. And, kudos to Canon because the new lens looks to do very well on that front: LensRentals.com - Canon 40mm Pancake – How Did They Do That??

06-22-2012, 02:31 AM	#122
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Looks good, sadly.

06-22-2012, 01:45 PM	#123
iangreenhalgh Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Millom, Cumbria Posts: 20	Good to see a prime lens coming to market instead of yet another zoom.

06-22-2012, 02:52 PM	#124
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	I should get mine Monday I figure it will be handy to stick in a pocket as a complement to a telephoto lens.

06-23-2012, 06:53 AM	#125
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948 Original Poster	Originally posted by Anvh Looks good, sadly. Time to step back and re-evaluate your priorities, here. More great lenses with good quality control is happy, not sad! Even if they're not from Pentax.

06-23-2012, 07:46 AM	#126
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by mattdm Time to step back and re-evaluate your priorities, here. More great lenses with good quality control is happy, not sad! Even if they're not from Pentax. Depends on which priorities you're talking about.

06-23-2012, 08:04 AM	#127
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Canon builds a decent camera or two, but I would rather shoot Pentax or Nikon. But my problem here is having "good quality control" and "Canon lens" without the L in the same sentence. Isn't that an oxymoron?

06-24-2012, 08:04 AM	#128
iangreenhalgh Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Millom, Cumbria Posts: 20	Originally posted by builttospill Canon builds a decent camera or two, but I would rather shoot Pentax or Nikon. But my problem here is having "good quality control" and "Canon lens" without the L in the same sentence. Isn't that an oxymoron? Sounds like an oxymoron to me, I had two copies of the 18-55 kit lens fall apart on me after a few months of use, and before they fell apart, the AF on both failed. I had a 1.8/50 too and that came apart in my hands when manually focussing it. Needless to say, I'm not a Canon shooter anymore, I don't like nasty plastic toys.

06-24-2012, 07:51 PM	#129
jakeblues Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Albums Posts: 167	Originally posted by borno I should get mine Monday I figure it will be handy to stick in a pocket as a complement to a telephoto lens. I'm planning to order one as well. I shoot pentax much more than I shoot canon, but this lens is pretty irresistable for my FF canon film SLR.

06-24-2012, 07:58 PM	#130
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Asahiflex Limited = Limited, with a corresponding build quality. If price is your main concern, then by all means buy the DA40XS which is a true pancake because it has one third the length and half the weight of the Canon The Canon is priced cheaper than the XS and also has a metal mount. The Canon lens has a lot of similarity in optical layout to the Voigtlander 40/2 and it apparently performs in that league. So this is a kick in the nads for the Ricoh boys. Canon > < Ricoh I just wish Canon would release this 40 in Pentax mount.

06-24-2012, 09:18 PM	#131
iangreenhalgh Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Millom, Cumbria Posts: 20	It's a real shame you can't put a Konica Hexanon 1.8/40 on a Pentax body because that is a really great lens, a true pancake and I bet it beats this Canon in IQ terms, and it's a very well built lens too, which I doubt this Canon is. The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is excellent too, but again, no use to Pentax shooters. The Praktica 2.4/50 pancake is very good and with a bit of fiddling will work on a Pentax body, it's available for peanuts so if you don't mind a bit of DIY is definitely worth looking at. You just have to file down the flanges by 0.4mm to make it fit a K mount, the tricky bit is adjusting it for infinity as the register is a wee bit shorter, it can be done though.

06-25-2012, 01:41 AM	#132
jakeblues Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Albums Posts: 167	Originally posted by iangreenhalgh The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is excellent too, but again, no use to Pentax shooters. I have the MD 45/2 adapted for canon, and it doesn't make me any less interested in the Canon 40/2.8. They're completely different lenses. Again, as an avid pentax shooter (my favorite camera system of my 3 SLR systems), I think the Canon 40/2.8 looks to be an excellent value and a potential best seller.

06-25-2012, 05:26 AM	#133
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by iangreenhalgh The Minolta MD 2/45 pancake is excellent too, but again, no use to Pentax shooters. I was once a dedicated Minolta user once and had an extensive collection of Minolta glass. The MD 45mm f/2 was just mediocre.

06-25-2012, 05:37 AM	#134
iangreenhalgh Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Millom, Cumbria Posts: 20	Hi Jake. I don't get your point, sorry, of course they are different lenses. How did you adapt the Minolta? Do you get infinity? If so, is it using a glassed adapter? Originally posted by creampuff I was once a dedicated Minolta user once and had an extensive collection of Minolta glass. The MD 45mm f/2 was just mediocre. That's just your opinion, I like it very much.

06-27-2012, 10:19 PM	#135
jakeblues Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Albums Posts: 167	Originally posted by creampuff I was once a dedicated Minolta user once and had an extensive collection of Minolta glass. The MD 45mm f/2 was just mediocre. I actually like the 45/2 quite a bit. And I suppose to justify this, I should say that I have the 24, 35 1.8, 58 1.2, and 85 1.7. The 45 just has a pleasant charm that I can't resist. And I mean that I find its IQ charming; not just it's size and handling. Here's a shot with the lens: Originally posted by iangreenhalgh Hi Jake. I don't get your point, sorry, of course they are different lenses. My point was that you seemed to suggest that the Canon wouldn't be as good as the other lenses you were listing, and I wanted to chime in and say that I haven't used one, but from the sample photos I've seen users post, it has a lot of character, and high IQ. Character is probably the primary reason I'll buy a lens. Also, you said this: Originally posted by iangreenhalgh it's a very well built lens too, which I doubt this Canon is Again, I haven't used the EF 40, but those that have seem to think it's well built. Originally posted by iangreenhalgh How did you adapt the Minolta? Do you get infinity? If so, is it using a glassed adapter? I adapted it myself using an m42-EOS mount and an AF confirm chip. I hacksawed the Minolta mount off, preserving the baseplate because the aperture mechanics are attached. I then sanded the mount plate as thin as I could get it. I drilled holes in the m42 adapter to match the minolta screwholes, and sanded it down as thin as I could get it. I then screwed them together, took off the faceplate to adjust for infinity, and bingo. Here's a shot of the back.