I was curious how the bokeh of my 35L, 35mm f/2 and 24-70L @ 35mm compared. So, I took a few pics on a tripod with the same framing/exposure (see below), and here are the results (FWIW ):
Looks like it's sharpness vs. CA, or slight green fringing in one example. In my experience the 35 f2 doesn't begin to hit the sharpness mark until at least f2.8/3.5 whereas the 1.4L is OK @ f1.6. I would rather have a faster lens like the L wide open and deal with the rare chance of minute CA than have a f2 lens that will, like all lenses, gradually decrease CA as it's stopped down but at the expense of speed. You were looking for the needle in the haystack and you found it. For the thousands of other times the 35mm f1.4 when used as recommended (full frame) serves their owners.
Barry Pehlman wrote:
Looks like it's sharpness vs. CA, or slight green fringing in one example. In my experience the 35 f2 doesn't begin to hit the sharpness mark until at least f2.8/3.5 whereas the 1.4L is OK @ f1.6. I would rather have a faster lens like the L wide open and deal with the rare chance of minute CA than have a f2 lens that will, like all lenses, gradually decrease CA as it's stopped down but at the expense of speed. You were looking for the needle in the haystack and you found it. For the thousands of other times the 35mm f1.4 when used as recommended (full frame) serves their owners....Show more →
Hmmm... this comparison is about bokeh, not so much about sharpness and CA's
i did the same test with 16-35LII then sold 24L & 35L and ending up with 16-35II, 50L, 85L, 100f2, 135L, 200LII. My travel kits will be 5D2 & 16-35 & 50 & 100. Seem to work pretty good with this setup.
kappaknight wrote:
Hrmm, not sure which is better (or which I'd prefer) from these pics.
When you look at the amount of blur, the 35L performs best. Even at f/2 it produces more blur than the 35mm f/2 wide open. BUT, the 35mm f/2 seems to have a slight advantage when stopped down to f/2.8 at closer distances (crops 2 and 3).
When you look at the nisen-bokeh (OOF highlights - crop 1) both the 35mm f/2 and 24-70L show the donut OOFH. There are also double/multiple contours. Which are all considered as non-pleasant. The 35L shows a much better performance here. All three lenses produce OOFH's that are similair in shape.
Then it is obvious that the 35L produces more CA's in (close-by) OOF areas of the frame. Both the 35mm f/2 and 24-70L are "better" in this regard.
All in all these lenses show very similair bokeh performance for this kind of shooting. There are differences though... but there isn't a clear "winner". Still, I prefer the 35L for bokeh. I am not really bothered by CA's in OOF areas. YMMV
I did this comparison (not a test) to appreciate the differences between these lenses. I own (and use) all three of them. Comparisons like this give me a better insight which lens(es) to take for which task/job at hand. In other words... I did the comparison for myself. But I am willing to share the results (and put some effort into that) so that other can -MAYBE- benefit from it. If you have something against that, please move along (instead of putting somebody else on the soapbox). Thank you
):
(distance 1,5 meters).
). Still, you make out the differences in bokeh (a few postcards and thermostat)