35L II > If every lens could be this good

fPrime wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

fPrime wrote:

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.

But here's where strongly I disagree. Yes, at f/2.8 a 24-70 zoom offer focal length flexibility and the 35/2IS offers stabilization, but neither render quite like the 35L.

True, neither will render exactly the same as the other.  Doesn't mean that the zoom or 35 / 2 IS come render worse, however.

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.

True. We can all think of imperfect objects that we love and would never trade up from... everything in life lies in the nuances.

Often, it's the imperfections that result in a particular character that appeals to each of us differently.  Thus the appeal of the "film look" to many, for example, even though digital is superior by pretty much every technical measure (unless we're comparing a much larger film format to a much smaller digital format).