35L II > If every lens could be this good

The best lens to explore ƒ1.4 shooting with. Fast AF & super sharp. The lack of purple fringe in high contrast shooting — wide open — is astounding. I hope Canon can spin that feat into other lenses (a revised 50L please?).

The images from this lens are really special. Recommended without hesitation.

Currently my favourite lens. Well hard to compare to my 500ii.

since I got the 35ii I have not used the 24-70ii at all and now looking to go primes only...

We expect every new lens to be like this and we get disappointed. For e.g. the 85mm f1.4 L IS. Many anticipated it will be as stellar as the 35mm f1.4L II.

I use a Leica 35mm f (summicron), have used a summilux (35mm f1.4) and can easily say that the Canon beats them too. The IQ is stellar. Sharp, bokeh is great, corner sharpness is astounding. The only bad thing is a little vignetting but that's okay.

I am thinking about adding this lens to my kit, and I see you have the 135 f2 too. How would you compare them sharpness wise?

Canon managed to mass-produce an AF lens of optical image quality comparable to Zeiss, Leica, etc. at a much lower price.

I think the 35LII is an excellent mate to the 135L. Both have similar renderings. You won't be disappointed.

Lee Baby Simms wrote:

The best lens to explore ƒ1.4 shooting with. Fast AF & super sharp. The lack of purple fringe in high contrast shooting — wide open — is astounding. I hope Canon can spin that feat into other lenses (a revised 50L please?).

The images from this lens are really special. Recommended without hesitation.

It is so good that is my 35mm of choice with my Sony A7R3! Love the lens for sure.

This is by no means a personal attack on you at all. I promise Lol. Because I know this sounds overly harsh haha. here goes....

The 35L II is absolute optical trash in my opinion compared to the old one lol ( for my priorities).  The tradeoff in micro contrast was way to significant for me personally.I'm disturbingly disappointed that Canon decided to discontinue the old one. The new ones seems like it would be good for one thing only. Massive prints above 44 inches wide viewed up close for gallery type situations. Other than that it looks awful to me. But of course  everyone has different priories.

Its pretty sharp which i only notice when pixel peeping. however when viewing the image at regular size it looks flat and muddy and washed out compared to the old one. it made me really sad to see this.

I know that sounds harsh. I really just have compared them both so many times that its awful.

hermit383 wrote:

This is by no means a personal attack on you at all. I promise Lol. Because I know this sounds overly harsh haha. here goes....

The 35L II is absolute optical trash in my opinion compared to the old one lol ( for my priorities). The tradeoff in micro contrast was way to significant for me personally.I'm disturbingly disappointed that Canon decided to discontinue the old one. The new ones seems like it would be good for one thing only. Massive prints above 44 inches wide viewed up close for gallery type situations. Other than that it looks awful to me. But of course everyone has different priories.

Its pretty sharp which i only notice when pixel peeping. however when viewing the image at regular size it looks flat and muddy and washed out compared to the old one. it made me really sad to see this.

I know that sounds harsh. I really just have compared them both so many times that its awful.

Are you serious?   I have never ever heard someone say anything like this about the new 35mm.

The old 35L isn't gone. You can buy it over and over and over and over on eBay. Have a closet full of them!

hermit383 wrote:

This is by no means a personal attack on you at all. I promise Lol. Because I know this sounds overly harsh haha. here goes....

The 35L II is absolute optical trash in my opinion compared to the old one lol ( for my priorities). The tradeoff in micro contrast was way to significant for me personally.I'm disturbingly disappointed that Canon decided to discontinue the old one. The new ones seems like it would be good for one thing only. Massive prints above 44 inches wide viewed up close for gallery type situations. Other than that it looks awful to me. But of course everyone has different priories.

Its pretty sharp which i only notice when pixel peeping. however when viewing the image at regular size it looks flat and muddy and washed out compared to the old one. it made me really sad to see this.

I know that sounds harsh. I really just have compared them both so many times that its awful.

Just when you think you have seen it all, this gets posted....I sure hope you are not serious about this....
Guess that as usual, to each its own.

hermit383 wrote:

This is by no means a personal attack on you at all. I promise Lol. Because I know this sounds overly harsh haha. here goes....

The 35L II is absolute optical trash in my opinion compared to the old one lol ( for my priorities). The tradeoff in micro contrast was way to significant for me personally.I'm disturbingly disappointed that Canon decided to discontinue the old one. The new ones seems like it would be good for one thing only. Massive prints above 44 inches wide viewed up close for gallery type situations. Other than that it looks awful to me. But of course everyone has different priories.

Its pretty sharp which i only notice when pixel peeping. however when viewing the image at regular size it looks flat and muddy and washed out compared to the old one. it made me really sad to see this.

I know that sounds harsh. I really just have compared them both so many times that its awful.

Would you show an example or two that shows what you are talking about? Where did you see these muddy, washed out pictures?

I say this as by no means to instigate anything personal again. But it doesn't surprise me at all that the majority of people don't share my opinion, to be honest. Since the digital boom of cameras, there have been people getting into photography quicker and quicker, and who learn mostly from the internet. Instead of learning from what someone who has years and years of experience un adulterated by review sites and lens data that shows virtual megapixels.

I think it's a matter of making lenses for different priorities, not necessarily better ones in every way. I really believe that in order to gain resolution in a lens that is already close to optical perfection ( optical tech has limitations inherent to the laws of physics). Simply improving the precision of the equipment used to make optics wont guarantee optical improvement in every area without the sacrifice of the certain trade offs and transmission properties inherent to various glass formulas.

however, I am not just speaking from a place of technical knowledge, because I have barley any compared to the people actually involved in the lenses production, but I do know that what limited knowledge i do have, to be true.

What I can see with my eyes is that side by side images of the 35lII have noticeable less detail when viewed at a global level. Details are sharper with the 35LII when viewed close up 1:1 and especially so at 1.4 and other wide apertures. But as you stop down the 35L original, it gets much sharper than the 35LII to my eyes. I see much more contrast and fine detail, especially so when viewing an image at normal size and not pixel peeping. Even with the old 35L at 1.4- f/2 the old version pops more and has better color saturation to me. These are not things you can fix in software fully by any means to my eyes. You can however boost the information that is there by saturation compensation, tone mapping etc, but if the information is lacking at the sensor, there is nothing you can do about it to fully "fix" it.

i'm guessing the people who say the 35LII is better have not compared images side by side to the old version of even more renown lenses like the Zeiss distagon/ certain Milvus lenses.

hermit383 wrote:

I say this as by no means to instigate anything personal again. But it doesn't surprise me at all that the majority of people don't share my opinion, to be honest. Since the digital boom of cameras, there have been people getting into photography quicker and quicker, and who learn mostly from the internet. Instead of learning from what someone who has years and years of experience un adulterated by review sites and lens data that shows virtual megapixels.

I think it's a matter of making lenses for different priorities, not necessarily better ones in every way. I really believe that in order to gain resolution in a lens that is already close to optical perfection ( optical tech has limitations inherent to the laws of physics). Simply improving the precision of the equipment used to make optics wont guarantee optical improvement in every area without the sacrifice of the certain trade offs and transmission properties inherent to various glass formulas.

however, I am not just speaking from a place of technical knowledge, because I have barley any compared to the people actually involved in the lenses production, but I do know that what limited knowledge i do have, to be true.

What I can see with my eyes is that side by side images of the 35lII have noticeable less detail when viewed at a global level. Details are sharper with the 35LII when viewed close up 1:1 and especially so at 1.4 and other wide apertures. But as you stop down the 35L original, it gets much sharper than the 35LII to my eyes. I see much more contrast and fine detail, especially so when viewing an image at normal size and not pixel peeping. Even with the old 35L at 1.4- f/2 the old version pops more and has better color saturation to me. These are not things you can fix in software fully by any means to my eyes. You can however boost the information that is there by saturation compensation, tone mapping etc, but if the information is lacking at the sensor, there is nothing you can do about it to fully "fix" it.

i'm guessing the people who say the 35LII is better have not compared images side by side to the old version of even more renown lenses like the Zeiss distagon/ certain Milvus lenses.

Any examples you can point to, especially showing the difference stopped down?  J A C S gave a link to a thread with direct comparisons, apparently at widest aperture.  In those comparisons it seems the original 35L just gives a busier background blur, and is less sharp wide open.

hermit383 wrote:

I say this as by no means to instigate anything personal again. But it doesn't surprise me at all that the majority of people don't share my opinion, to be honest. Since the digital boom of cameras, there have been people getting into photography quicker and quicker, and who learn mostly from the internet. Instead of learning from what someone who has years and years of experience un adulterated by review sites and lens data that shows virtual megapixels.

I think it's a matter of making lenses for different priorities, not necessarily better ones in every way. I really believe that in order to gain resolution in a lens that is already close to optical perfection ( optical tech has limitations inherent to the laws of physics). Simply improving the precision of the equipment used to make optics wont guarantee optical improvement in every area without the sacrifice of the certain trade offs and transmission properties inherent to various glass formulas.

however, I am not just speaking from a place of technical knowledge, because I have barley any compared to the people actually involved in the lenses production, but I do know that what limited knowledge i do have, to be true.

What I can see with my eyes is that side by side images of the 35lII have noticeable less detail when viewed at a global level. Details are sharper with the 35LII when viewed close up 1:1 and especially so at 1.4 and other wide apertures. But as you stop down the 35L original, it gets much sharper than the 35LII to my eyes. I see much more contrast and fine detail, especially so when viewing an image at normal size and not pixel peeping. Even with the old 35L at 1.4- f/2 the old version pops more and has better color saturation to me. These are not things you can fix in software fully by any means to my eyes. You can however boost the information that is there by saturation compensation, tone mapping etc, but if the information is lacking at the sensor, there is nothing you can do about it to fully "fix" it.

i'm guessing the people who say the 35LII is better have not compared images side by side to the old version of even more renown lenses like the Zeiss distagon/ certain Milvus lenses.

less detail? I have yet to find a single comparison between the two where the L ii does not absolutely destroys the v1 in detail. I mean, come on, even the DXO fieldmap shows how much sharper the 35Lii is across the frame wide open...is not even remotely close. Its bokeh is smoother too which for me gives is a much more cleaner, less distracting 3D look to images. Even the link that was posted earlier shows that so I guess you have your preference but looks like is not shared by many.
Regards