Canon 35mm f/2 IS vs Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art bokeh comparison

kotmj wrote:

Peter Karbe of Leica said in an interview on the 50/2 M APO that what they tried to achieve with it that was different from most manufacturers is that the MTF needs to fall off steeply away from the plane of focus. That is, the object in focus has great macro and microcontrast -- very high and level MTF curves -- but that the objects infront of and behind the plane of focus have intentionally bad MTF curves. The out-of-focus areas have low contrast and resolution. This difference in contrast between the object in focus and those OOF is what makes for the pop.

Yeah, reminds me of the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G - very poor mid / corner results (on paper) compared to other modern "sharp" lenses if you go by MTF curves or flat pictures of charts, but it's that softness which adds to the fantastic "pop" in the images in the real world - in my opinion.

MTF charts and the like are an useful indication of a lens's capability of course, but there's no substitute to having the lens in your hand and using it as you intend to use it so I'd take those technical tests with a pinch of salt. I doubt many of us intent to use lenses to photograph flat charts.

I think one of the most useful things those technical charts can illuminate (no pun intended here) are the vignetting problems and distortion. Sharpness, contrast and bokeh are best left to personal tests in my opinion.

Cheers,

Mark.