A breakthrough: The Canon Pancake

[Herb19]

The Leica CL with the Summicron-C 40 mm and the Canon EOS 5D mk2 with the 40 mm pancake.

What did we gain in 40 years technical development that is really relevant for the photographer? 

Herb

[Ken Bennett]

Thanks for the comparison. I was thinking about the size difference between the 5D series with the new 40, and any of my Panasonics with the 20/1.7. It's a focal length that I enjoy using, so of course I'm interested, but the overall size doesn't change much -- my 5D2 is still pretty large.

That said, a GH2 (or GX1) with the 20 compared to the Leica CL with the 40 would be an interesting exercise.

[AFairley]

Thanks for the comparison. I was thinking about the size difference between the 5D series with the new 40, and any of my Panasonics with the 20/1.7. It's a focal length that I enjoy using, so of course I'm interested, but the overall size doesn't change much -- my 5D2 is still pretty large.

That said, a GH2 (or GX1) with the 20 compared to the Leica CL with the 40 would be an interesting exercise.

Judging from this, I'm guessing that the CL would be a little taller, both about the same depth.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokton/3962921480/

[JeanMichel]

Hi,
I purchased a Voigtlander 40 mm f/2 lens for my 5d2 earlier (an their 20 mm too) to try to mimic the feel of my film Leicas. Using the 24-105 was fine but I wanted something less massive. Both lenses are quite fine, easy to use, and manual focus using the normal screen is OK since I can use the focus confirmation lights. But I haven't used either lens much since getting an M9 and using my quite older Leica lenses with it. The VC 40 mm lens costs about $500 Canadian, the 20 mm costs about $600.
Jean-michel

[Pingang]

The Canon pancake looks to me a lot bigger than the original Contax Zeiss 45mm f/2.8 Tessar T* MM more than 20 years back, which is a very nice lens of its time and I use it with my Contax RTSII and RTSIII a lot.  Coming to 2012, my hunch is we are going to see may be a little more hubrid lens in Canon line up that can be use nicely on full frame DSLR as well as the coming mirrorless system.
Not starting a rumor here but I suspect the coming mirrorless would most certainly take the advantage of existing line up of EF lenses through an electronic adapter but almost all the lense would be too big for the mirrorless concept except this type of pancake designs.  That being said, I think probably Canon can ditch the entire 1.6X sensor DSLR cameras to be mirrorless, I personally use only FF bodies because lenswise it is what makes sense for me, could consider more if the smaller sensor is mirrorless oriented.

Pingang
Shanghai

[KevinA]

The Leica CL with the Summicron-C 40 mm and the Canon EOS 5D mk2 with the 40 mm pancake.

What did we gain in 40 years technical development that is really relevant for the photographer? 

Herb

I doubt you would seriously take a CL along to do a job the Canon is suited for. I can't think of any reason to buy that lens either for a Canon D, or is it supposed to be one of those "walk about" lenses.
 I see little point in a pancake on a 1D and only slightly more point on a 5D.
The CL I always thought was a not quite camera according to reports, too short a rangefinder base, more Minolta than Leica. But if push came to shove (I'm a film user and fan) I would rather have a 5D with the eggs and milk lens than the CL. I reckon the Canon lens has got to be batter than the CL. I'm so sorry I could not resist.

Kevin.
A trip around the 2012 Olympic site http://youtu.be/TwewnWMDucw

[BJL]

The Leica CL with the Summicron-C 40 mm and the Canon EOS 5D mk2 with the 40 mm pancake.

Your photo indicates that the size advantage of a pancake lens is mostly wasted on a bulky SLR body. Combining that with the fact that this lens uses Canon's new STM focusing system, designed for fast, quiet focusing during video and with CD AF, and I am tempted to speculate that this lens is intended in part to be useful with future more compact mirrorless cameras from Canon.

[Canon Bob]

Your photo indicates that the size advantage of a pancake lens is mostly wasted on a bulky SLR body......

The size advantage becomes more obvious when you're shooting with a 85/1.2 and have the "Pancake" in your pocket ready for a wider shot if needed.

Bob

[michaelwm]

The size advantage becomes more obvious when you're shooting with a 85/1.2 and have the "Pancake" in your pocket ready for a wider shot if needed.

Bob

I've always wondered about this logic. Where do you put the 85/1.2 now? In your pocket? Or are you just supposed to hold it somehow?
BTW, I'm not being rude, I'm seriously wondering?

Michael

[Ken Bennett]

I've always wondered about this logic. Where do you put the 85/1.2 now?

I had exactly the same response to this suggestion. It's one of the reasons I appreciate the small size of my m4/3 gear -- the 45/1.8 easily fits in the same pocket that held my 20mm lens. That 85/1.2 is a monster.

[scooby70]

Not starting a rumor here but I suspect the coming mirrorless would most certainly take the advantage of existing line up of EF lenses through an electronic adapter but almost all the lense would be too big for the mirrorless concept except this type of pancake designs.  That being said, I think probably Canon can ditch the entire 1.6X sensor DSLR cameras to be mirrorless, I personally use only FF bodies because lenswise it is what makes sense for me, could consider more if the smaller sensor is mirrorless oriented.

I have a 5D and micro four thirds but whilst I'm willing to embrace MFT and EVF's I suspect that the howls of pain from 7D and other APS-C Canon users would be heard on the moon if Canon did ditch their APS-C DSLR lineup for mirrorless.

[Canon Bob]

I've always wondered about this logic. Where do you put the 85/1.2 now? In your pocket? Or are you just supposed to hold it somehow?
BTW, I'm not being rude, I'm seriously wondering?

Michael

Possibly I chose a bad example with the 85L.  I shoot football with a 300/2.8 and a 135/2 but have a pancake (Voigtlander 40mm) in my pocket for a team shot if required.....it's two shots and then back in the pocket. I do understand what you're saying though in other situations.

Bob