35L II > If every lens could be this good

fPrime wrote:

fino_nyc wrote:

I've tried both 35mm 1.4L mark I and II versions. The mark II is the fastest and most accurate Canon lens I've tried. However, I prefer the rendering of the mark I - I was going to buy it, but I needed a wider lens and bought the 24mm 1.4L instead.

Agree, mate. The 35mm 1.4L Mk II wins on all of the technical tests, but I prefer the photographic rendering of the Mk I. Wide open comparisons don't concern me, usually I shoot f/2.8 and upwards for greater DOF. And it is here that the Mk I renders more pleasingly to me. Here's a thread with examples that mirrors my use case:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62133440

Fine photos, to be sure.  But as there were not photos of the same scene from the Mk II to compare with, no conclusion other than the Mk I is "good enough".

To knock the 35mm 1.4L Mk I is pretty easy... yes, compared to the 35L Mk II wide open it's only sharp in the center and still has plenty of lens aberrations. And closed down shooting into the sun it definitely has more flare than the Mk II.

But if I shoot stopped down a few stops and don't shoot into the sun? That's where I love my 35L Mk I.

On the other hand, the 24-70 / 2.8L II might do just as well under those circumstances and you get a very nice zoom range, or the 35 / 2 IS, which is in top form by f/4 and gives you IS in a smaller package.

I won't begrudge anyone from choosing the Mk II because it is better corrected at the edges of the shooting envelope, I'll only suggest that the 35L Mk I has more rendering magic when shot in more common use cases.

In the end, it doesn't matter what the charts show or what other people (other than your clients, if you're a pro, or the judges if you enter competitions) say -- use what you like best.