35L II > If every lens could be this good

J A C S wrote:

hermit383 wrote:

No sour grapes. I really mean this. I'm not claiming any facts I assure you. This is strictly just my opinion, and above in all my posts I think you'll see that I made sure to state as such.

I posted a link above which demonstrated what I based my opinion off better than my own images. Really I think both are awesome in certain areas. But when I used the word " trash" above, I just mean for my own personal preferences.

You form your opinion based on some video. I owned the 35L for years. I own the 35LII more or less since it was introduced. I had them both for a month and compared them. The II is better in every respect, as simple as that.

Your "trashing" claim is beyond ridiculous. Here are both at f/4 where they should both shine. The II is noticeably better. Now, switch to f/1.4 there and come back to tell me that the I trashes the II. This is delusional.

Again, this is no attack on you or the lens. This is just my opinion: To my eyes, the 35L has superior micro contrast. To my eyes, this becomes even more undeniable at 2.8 and above.

You are trolling, right?

Also my opinion: the 35LII has far superior resolution at 1.4- f2.5 in the center. and has generally better resolution anywhere outside of the center of the image at basically any aperture, although to my eye, the 35L isn't worse in micro contrast outside of the center except at wide apertures. Sorry if i offered you by any of that

Try to express opinions based on experience not on theory (coming from somebody who does theory for living).

thanks for the link, J A C S! i do have the 35 f1.4 L (original), which is good, but when i compared it to the v II, V II is by far better in contrast and sharpness in every F stop! but still doesn't flow my upgrade juice because it is not my as used lens as my canon 24-70 f2.8 II, which has more than decent 35mm FL. but that is another discussion for another time