35L II > If every lens could be this good

fPrime wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

fPrime wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

Yes, but only because "worse" and "better" imply subjective criteria. For example, I consider the 24-70 to be fair at casting 3D Pop. The 352/IS is a touch better. But the 35L I and II both dominate over both in that regard.

I have yet to see a single example that showed the same scene taken with two different lenses with the same perspective, framing, and DOF, where one illustrated "3D Pop" and the other didn't.

I see it ALL the time, maybe my eyes are just more sensitive to the effect.

Sometimes known as the placebo effect. 

Just wondering, Great Bustard, can you see the greater depth rendition of the Mark I at the :47 second timestamp of this YouTube comparison like I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=golWmNlNRds

I just see low rez renditions of a scene and no "3D effect" at all for either one even with you tube at full screen.  I also see considerably more sharpness for the 35 / 1.4L II at 100% (1:00 and 1:35) and considerably smoother bokeh (2:17).