In praise of the 22

Back2M wrote:

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

Your AF has always f/1.8 with the 50mm. A big advantage in my opinion.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both.

I had a different experience.

But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

It won't happen. Canon wants you to buy a full frame + 85mm. If Canon brings out a good 50mm for aps-c  Canon is really scared upgraders will move to another brand while upgrading. Let's hope competition will force a change here.