Upload & Sell: Off
They both seems equally sharp (in this lighting), but there is a huge difference in the bokeh. The right side is much smoother. I would be really surprised if that is the f/2.
I'm not seeing "much smoother" - honestly they look so similar we'r really picking at nits here. I always thought the 35L was a stellar optic, but it really isn't so much different than the 32 2.0 in practice. You're paying a ton for that stop.
Sort of a great marketing lesson for all of us. The last few percentage point of improvement are worth a ton. Think about that when you price yourself.
There are two clues that show a consistent difference across sample images:
1. Vignetting is slightly stronger at f/2 for the left-hand side images.
2. Bokeh is visibly smoother on the right-hand side images (if you can't see the difference, study the trees in the first and last image). The problem is that we're looking at very, very small sample images, which hides all kinds of optical differences that become visible at larger print sizes.
There are other reasons to buy the 35L besides optical performance:
1. Significantly better build quality
2. Ultrasonic AF
And yes, you *are* paying a lot more for that extra stop. But it's funny how few people seem to point this out when comparing, say, the EF 300/4L IS against the EF 300/2.8L IS. If the thinking is always, "why pay 5x more for 1 more stop," then why buy primes at all? The point is that for many, many photographers, the ability to shoot at f/1.4 over f/2 is very important. The thinking goes, if I'm going to buy a prime lens, I want to get more than 1 stop faster performance than a zoom at that focal length, especially if the zoom has IS.