I've been shooting on a 35 2.0 for some time. I'm pretty proud of this little workhorse. That said, it doesn't compare to the richness of color and clarity in the 35 L. Just for fun, I took my husband outside and shot 5 successive images using both lenses. Same iso, aperture, shutter speed for each pair.
I know it's hard to tell in this size, but can you tell the difference? For each, which do you think is the L? R or L?
I came to the same conclusion after I tested my 35/2 against my 35L: -almost- no differences in IQ at similar apertures. AF, built and MF are not so much the same.
that is veeeeeery interesting. the 35L is one of those lenses I would love to pick up but don't want to drop the cash for. I might have to try the 2.0...
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.
GraemePitman wrote:
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.
Yeah, Tom got it - the right side on all images is the L.
I was surprised by the lens flare in #2. Any thoughts on that one?
Worth mentioning, the 2.0 is tiny, plastic, and AF is LOUD.. like, REALLY LOUD. So when you're at someone's wedding or shooting an engagement, there is a certain element of professionalism worth paying for.
Even after this test, I ended buying the 35 L. It comes this week (the lens used in the test was a rental). Build, durability, MF, AF noise (or lack thereof), and the brightness of the images with the richer skin tones pushed me over. Still pretty proud of my little f/2.0. At $330 it's a great lens.
GraemePitman wrote:
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.
TRReichman wrote:
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.
- trr
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.
It was pretty obvious to me the right side are the L's. I could tell in the very first shot. The L produces much better detail, tone and clarity. The rest of them just solidified those facts.
Thanks for posting. My feeling was that the right side were all from the L, with the possible exception of #2. The left edge sharpness (look at the tree trunk) is much better on the 2.0. Despite the small sample size you can still see differences. Anything going to large print will certainly exploit those differences.
I also completely agree with the extra value in the higher-end glass; I think it is often that extra little bit...be it in glass, processing or some other factor...that sets you apart. It helps provide that "thing" that makes you better than the next guy/gal.
have owned 2 35 2.0's, broke in six months. owned 1 L not broke in a year. I didnt use the 35 in weddings virtually at all. now 60 percent of my days images are the 35l
Optically, it would be hard to justify the additional cost for the L. Durability might be another story, although the 2.0 is not exactly built like a nifty 50 and 5 2.0's for the cost of 1 L makes that an iffy argument. The extra stop? I guess you either feel you need it or you don't.
I've been trying to figure out my next lens purchase, I think the 35 might have it. Honestly, though, the difference is small enough-for me, anyways-that I'm fine with getting the 2.0. At least to build up my lens base.
