Almost flawless! 35mm f/2 IS USM review

Jonathan Brady wrote: "So, you think it makes sense to blame a piece of equipment for not being able to do something it's not supposed to do? Well Al, I blame you for not being able to fly like a bird. Not like an ostrich or a chicken... but more like a peregrine falcon. And because you can't get over 150 miles an hour, in flight, equipped with only what you were born with, you are not a capable person. Would you criticize this lens for not being an 800mm f/5.6 lens also, Al? If so, then I would also assume you'd criticize it for not being f/1.4, not being every other available focal length, as well as a zoom, f/1.2, being white, having the "L" designation, not natively fitting Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Sigma, etc., bodies, not making you breakfast, picking out your clothes, bringing about world peace, restoring the ozone layer, and getting the Japanese to stop whaling. Wow... the list of negatives for this lens is ENORMOUS! Isn't it Al? It's a pity you don't have 2 minutes to scan through the above linked thread (but you obviously have much longer to be argumentative and reply to this thread) to see some great pictures - you'd almost be forgiven for ignoring the fact that it takes wonderful pictures within it's specifications."

Er.. wat??

You said above that you disagreed with not being able to blame a piece of equipment for not having something that's not a part of the specifications. Now you're saying you agree that if a person's reading comprehension sucks so bad that they can't figure it out that they shouldn't be buying something in the first place. You sure are picking an interesting point of view. Care to elaborate and explain that mess?

I don't recall not saying that you cannot not blame a piece of equipment for not having something that's not part the specifications.

If I haven't laid it out with absolute clarity by now, then I'm obviously the one who's deficient and I offer my sincerest apologies. Good day.

Right you are then.

Seriously, joking apart, in my view some lenses *do* display something special (at all apertures) which cannot be measured by MTF charts or specifications. Bokeh is one of these things; depth of colour is another; three-dimensionality is another. You can't describe them in specifications and it's got nothing to do with the sophistication of IS or resolving power or whatever. Some people see it, and some people don't - some people never see past sharpness tests. In my view, the 35IS doesn't have it.

So post images to illustrate this. Otherwise it is all in your head. The reason you don't post images is because you know, we know that your imaginings would not withstand public scrutiny and would crumble at first sight. Images, Al, post images.
--
No, I don't take your word for it (no matter how long you've been in photography, how much film you exposed, or how many clicks on shutter you've got). Post replicable, transparently presented images to support your claims.