My post was intended to support the original post in the thread and to gently disagree with the post I was responding to. While you bring up very good points I

My post was intended to support the original post in the thread and to gently disagree with the post I was responding to. While you bring up very good points I'm personally inclined to disagree on the "cost" argument when comparing 50mm f/1.8 and 40mm f/2.8, simply because by the time the 40mm pancake was released the 50mm f/1.8 went up in price from $80 to $125. Very shortly after it was released the price for 40mm went from $199 down to $149 for a while and at that price the difference between $125 and $149 is negligible. At this price point the 40mm is arguably of a higher "value" than the 50mm unless you really need f/1.8. In the first sentence of your post you used present tense and I'd like to point out that the 50mm f/1.8 has been discontinued, so anyone continuing to recommend this lens is giving dated advice (not saying you are). Currently the 3 cheapest Canon primes are the 50mm f/1.8 STM at $125, the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM at $149, and the 40mm f/2.8 at $199. I currently recommend people the 40mm if asked about what to get for a full frame or the 24mm f/2.8 STM for APS-C. The 24mm on APS-C gives you a nice 38.4mm equivalent and I don't know why you've dismissed this fine lens (I hope that's no too harsh). Interestingly Yongnuo released the YN 50mm f/1.8 for $50 that looks almost identical to the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II that's been discontinued.