35L II > If every lens could be this good

J A C S wrote:

fPrime wrote:

J A C S wrote:

fPrime wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

fPrime wrote:

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).

FWIW, I see exactly the same.

I don't own either of the 35Ls but I know that the Mark II has a superb reputation and this pair of pics supports it 100%.

Me as well. Look, I'm perfectly open to preferring the rendering of older versions of lenses to newer ones, but there's nothing there that says to me the II is not the far better lens in every area where there's a difference.

Then for you, Steve, and Great Bustard the 35 II is indeed the better lens because you can "see" the better sharpness and aberration control. If you buy it for those qualities at least you'll feel like you are getting your money's worth.

It would actually be foolish to buy a 3D Pop lens if one can't visualize the 3D Pop effect in photographs in the first place. So all is good but really nothing changes. You prefer your choice, I prefer mine.

If you think that strong, nervous double line bokeh is 3D, then the 35L is your lens.

There's a bit more to it than rough bokeh,

I would call that extra the 4th dimension...

but yes the 35L Mk 1 does better for me in casting the elusive 3D Pop effect.

You are trying to hold the better sharpness of the 35LII against itself but in my experience, the 35LII has much better bokeh in the first place. Sharpness comes next.

Sharpness isn't my first priority either, JACS. And I'll grant you that the 35L II's bokeh is smoother and therefore better in a classical sense.

Despite all this "technical" agreement on what's better, I still wouldn't trade my 35L for a 35L II. I just personally prefer the rendering of the original 35L within the focal range that I commonly use a 35mm optic. At least grant me that we see plenty of people here and on Flickr still getting great results with it. That alone speaks volumes...

I see a lot of great photos taken with the old 50/1.4 as well...

Have that one too, and, yes, just like the 35L it can produce great results if you back off from shooting it wide open.

Have you even tried the 35LII?

No, I reviewed the head to head comparisons at the time and realized that I usually preferred the 35L rendering over the 35L II and so opted not to upgrade. I say "usually" because most reviewers like to post f/1.4 shots to show off the fewer aberrations and better edge sharpness of the 35LII and these comparisons inevitably favor the II on these specific qualities.

When you get to f/2.8 and beyond the sharpness and aberration control are largely equalized and then the lower optical complexity of the 35L steps forward to give the 35L that extra measure of dimensionality IMHO. And it's the 3rd dimension, not fourth that I mean by that.

fPrime