35L II > If every lens could be this good

Yake wrote:

hermit383 wrote:

I say this as by no means to instigate anything personal again. But it doesn't surprise me at all that the majority of people don't share my opinion, to be honest. Since the digital boom of cameras, there have been people getting into photography quicker and quicker, and who learn mostly from the internet. Instead of learning from what someone who has years and years of experience un adulterated by review sites and lens data that shows virtual megapixels.

I think it's a matter of making lenses for different priorities, not necessarily better ones in every way. I really believe that in order to gain resolution in a lens that is already close to optical perfection ( optical tech has limitations inherent to the laws of physics). Simply improving the precision of the equipment used to make optics wont guarantee optical improvement in every area without the sacrifice of the certain trade offs and transmission properties inherent to various glass formulas.

however, I am not just speaking from a place of technical knowledge, because I have barley any compared to the people actually involved in the lenses production, but I do know that what limited knowledge i do have, to be true.

What I can see with my eyes is that side by side images of the 35lII have noticeable less detail when viewed at a global level. Details are sharper with the 35LII when viewed close up 1:1 and especially so at 1.4 and other wide apertures. But as you stop down the 35L original, it gets much sharper than the 35LII to my eyes. I see much more contrast and fine detail, especially so when viewing an image at normal size and not pixel peeping. Even with the old 35L at 1.4- f/2 the old version pops more and has better color saturation to me. These are not things you can fix in software fully by any means to my eyes. You can however boost the information that is there by saturation compensation, tone mapping etc, but if the information is lacking at the sensor, there is nothing you can do about it to fully "fix" it.

i'm guessing the people who say the 35LII is better have not compared images side by side to the old version of even more renown lenses like the Zeiss distagon/ certain Milvus lenses.

Any examples you can point to, especially showing the difference stopped down? J A C S gave a link to a thread with direct comparisons, apparently at widest aperture. In those comparisons it seems the original 35L just gives a busier background blur, and is less sharp wide open.

Indeed is not even remotely as sharp wide open