35LII vs. 35L samples

Any copies of the last shot at a decent aperture, so we can see the room?

As test locales go, it looks warm and welcoming, and I'd like to see the room, know where it is, and know who the men worthy of busts are, and what they did.

I do recognize the effort that went into the tests.

That said,

I spent ten minutes squinting at the fuzziness. I remain conclusion free on the cost-benefit analysis.

BAK

BAK wrote:

Any copies of the last shot at a decent aperture, so we can see the room?

As test locales go, it looks warm and welcoming, and I'd like to see the room, know where it is, and know who the men worthy of busts are, and what they did.

Do you want to know the story of the test charts when you see a resolution test? Think of this room as a test chart.

I do recognize the effort that went into the tests.

That said,

I spent ten minutes squinting at the fuzziness. I remain conclusion free on the cost-benefit analysis.

As I said, those are tests. I did use it "in the field", and so far (I had it for a few days only), the results are excellent. But I do not post photos of relatives or friends here, sorry. Nor photos of my house.

Thanks for the quick comparison. I am going to purchase the 35 f/4Lii this March. Looking at your quick comparisons I don't see $700 difference between the both versions.

My typical purchasing habits though are to go with the newer version.

Thanks for the tests. I like them and thought they were useful. There is no doubt the II version is the better lens. This is most obvious in the chromatic aberration visible in the overexposed windows. However, the degree of chromatic aberration shown by the I version is hardly obnoxious. It is fairly trivial to the impact of the image. Moreover, the color fringing is easily removed in RAW conversion.

As for sharpness, I do believe the II version reveals a tad bit more sharpness but it is amazingly subtle. You have to look hard and go back and forth between the two versions to notice it. I doubt that anyone would ever object to the degree of sharpness revealed in the I version. In personal impressionistic terms, I'd say that the II version is about 5% better than the I version.

In terms of return on investment, it is important to remember that the I version can be had used on ebay for around $900 these days. The II version costs $1700. Yet, results produced by the original I version would be perfectly acceptable to any client, wedding or commercial. Moreover, the differences between the two lenses disappear by f4.0. I decided not to sell my I version and buy the new II. I just can't justify it.

Actually, in another thread, I advised the OP to get version I. Not that II is not better in any respect except for size and weight.

The difference matters to me mostly in the bokeh area. I have a number of shots with the I with a double line busy bokeh. This is a small percentage of all the images wide open with that lens but it bothered me. Today, I could not really challenge either lens to reproduce the busy bokeh. In some other shots around the house, I can see the difference better.

Here are the crops I posted there, It is easy to say which is which and I was testing for performance in backlit situations.

===

EDIT: Here is a bokeh comparison taken near the left border of the photo above, 100% crop.

Thanks once again. These samples certainly do emphasize differences. Everything comes out in favor of the new version quite clearly.

But here's my situation: I bought the 35 mm I some years ago for $1595.00. I am loathe to sell it for $900 (or less) to reduce problems which are either easily correctable (chromatic aberration) or very subtle (sharpness).

If I did not already own a top shelf 35mm lens and wanted to purchase a new one, of course I would go for the II. It's only $200 more than what I paid for the I. But that's not the situation.

One other factor is that when it comes to wide angle lenses, I almost always want great depth of field. Therefore, when I do use the 35mm lens, it's generally stopped down to f8 or smaller. And as I already mentioned, when stopped down there is virtually no difference between the two lenses.

Again, I do appreciate your good work on these comparisons. They bring the lens chart comparisons to life.

I agree that the bokeh in the type I lens is distracting. However it is possible to adjust such things (assuming it really bothers the photographer) by adding lens blur in Photoshop. I took the liberty of adjusting the I version you posted here:

Yes, it was an troublesome extra step. But it did work.

I will post more photos here, I did not abandon this thread. The weather here has been miserable lately, and it is really ugly outside this time of the year, so I will wait for better shooting opportunities.

J A C S wrote:

I will post more photos here, I did not abandon this thread. The weather here has been miserable lately, and it is really ugly outside this time of the year, so I will wait for better shooting opportunities.

thanks for the comparison but i don't see a compelling reason to a abandoning my old 35 f1.4 for the new one differences are quite minute!

1Dx4me wrote:

J A C S wrote:

I will post more photos here, I did not abandon this thread. The weather here has been miserable lately, and it is really ugly outside this time of the year, so I will wait for better shooting opportunities.

thanks for the comparison but i don't see a compelling reason to a abandoning my old 35 f1.4 for the new one differences are quite minute!

Well, I had to have the new one but I have always said that the 35L was a great lens.

TyphoonTW wrote:

I've never owned any of these 2 lenses so I can only use Flickr and these "vs." thread to compare the two, but to me it looks like contrast is a bit better on the older model. For sharpness and bokeh I'd pick the mkII for sure, but am I wrong thinking the mkI has slightly better contrast?

I do not think so.

The weather is better here today, and I snapped a few more shots. Sorry, no skin tones. All shot in manual, same exposure and processing in LR, lens module off.

The first pair was compensated by -1 EV in LR. One may say that the sun has moved between the shots. There was a slight breeze. F/11.

more flare

**********************

F/1.4. Focused in LV but with a scene like this, I cannot guarantee exactly the same focus.

smoother bokeh in the lower right corner

************************

Here, I had to do highlight compensation -82 which lower the contrast. The main subject is very bright with highlights that look blown before the compensation. The bokeh is better with the II.

Check out the lower left corner! Not that it matters.

The bokeh is harsher. Look at the power lines in the upper left corner or the branches in the upper right one.

sure would be nice if you labeled each shot with the lens that took it.

LaszloBencze wrote:

sure would be nice if you labeled each shot with the lens that took it.

I expected to be in the EXIF. I usually link from flickr, and then you can see in in the EXIF but this time, I uploaded them to my gallery. Anyway, the slightly longer FL is the 35LII, the other is the 35L.