Ok, so I have analyzed the bear, moose sculpture, and head/shoulder person sculpture.
Disclaimer: Anything here is my opinion based on my eyes from these photos. This is only my opinion based on what I know and what I see here. No offense is intended
I don't have my own better photos for comparison, but If I were to try show the advantage of the 35L in the most obvious way, I would want photos at WOA, or stoped down 1/3-2/3 and of a subject that is 3D ( not a paper chart) that is relatively centered in the frame.
Despite me not considering these photos to fully demonstrate what I personally see in the 35L original, they suit ok for this write up
The best way to test these is having one image immediately replace another one of the screen ( not closing out a window and re opening a new one), it's best for the different image to pop right in front of the previous one. It's best to do this along with looking at the imaged side by side at the same time in two separate windows. If you only do one of these methods, make sure it's viewing both images simultaneously side by side.
It's taken me a while to write this but I wanted to get a response out. I have much more comments about all of these test photos but there are what came to mind first. I may later see other more significant differences that I may have left out.
1.) : Head/ Shoulders statue. - My guess is Picture1= 35L - Picture2 = 35L II
This picture, the one that appears sharper, with less distortion, and better overall contrast. In this scene I will honestly say that the lens in "Pic-2" ( guessing 35LII) is superior in every single way.. Any advantage I feel the 35L original has with micro contrast, is negated by the fact that the 35LII has superior resolution, retains better global contrast, and better micro contrast outside of the center of the image, and especially so near the edges of the frame. -Also, the superior bokeh of the 35LII is another added plus and massive advantage, arguably more so than the subject in some instances.
-This scenario is what pushes me towards wanting to buy the lens in "Pic-2" 35LII. I often shoot at wide apertures I like framing subjects loosely in the frame which could lead to them being out of the center. The better bokeh of the 35LII beats the 35L original in some scenarios
2.) : Moose sculpture- My guess- Picture1 = 35L - Picture2 = 35LII
This one, to me, in my opinion, shows the advantages of the lens in "Pic-1" ( Picture 1) original the strongest.
-The nose of the moose appears more 3D when flipping back and forth to my eye and has higher levels of "clarity" it looks clearer.
-The forehead above the nose texture pops more and has greater clarity in "Pic-1"
-"Pic-1" ( Picture 1), The ear on the left ( moose's right ear) also shows more liveliness and clarity to me. The spots between the highlights and the adjacent shadow appear to my eye, to pop more and look more striking.
-"Pic-1" shows more fine depth along the shoulder/ arm and torso of the body especially with the concave cut marks
"Pic-2" look like it has a milky film over it in certain areas of the body. Mainly the torso, this shows stronger to me. this negatively impact the image significantly in my eye
"Pic-2" makes this moose pop more in other areas further away from the center of the frame, such as the moose's left ear. here the lens in "Pic-2" superior edge of the frame resolution, global contrast, and micro contrast outperform the lens in "Pic-1", especially in this set of photos as they appear to be shot with a wide aperture (the known weakest point for the 35L Original)
3.) : Teddy Bear- My guess is that "Pic-1" is the 35LII and "Pic-2" is the 35L Original.
First thing I notice is...
-"Pic-1" immediately see the superior resolution and better global contrast of what i assume to be the 35LII. This lens looks better in almost every way to me in this photo
if i'm right, this is ok for the 35L Original because global contrast/haze can be fixed with be fixed relatively easily with software, where as micro contrast, once sacrificed from the image to some degree, is impossible to put back in, in my opinion/ belief/ what I see with my eyes)
-"Pic-2" Camera left side ( side receiving more light) Mouth/nose appears a very very slight bit more rounded and with more depth than "Pic-1" despite its poor global contrast from shooting backlit and at wide aperture. I suspect that stopped down that this would be even more pronounced, like how it is with other photo examples i've seen.
-"Pic-2"The hat rim looks to have maybe a tiny bit more of a 3D look to it on the left side but not my much. maybe not at all.
Ok thats all. If you have more examples comparing these lenses, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for reading.
