herbertgzb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
The major point here is that the OP used a flawed test method, in which case sharpness became the focus of it.
In fact, all lenses performs pretty well in the center, at F/8. But that does not mean that we all want a lens which has F/4 as its biggest aperture.
It's another flaw that sharpness bacome the only thing important to a lens. In fact, sharpness is much more important in telephoto lenses since they are playing with tougher stuff, e.g, a long passage filled with dusty air could deteriate IQ very badly. Wide angel lenses worries much less on this kind of issues.
The most important difference between a 35mm F/2 an a 35L, are the following:
A, 1.4 VS 2.0. That's ISO 3200 VS 1600. It is very important in low light (while not important in this test)
B, Color saturation, micro contrast, details. In general, L lenses has a much more saturated color (which allows much bigger working space in post processing) than non-Ls. This is the prominent difference between an L prime and a non-L prime, in general. All non-L primes show a dry-out, flat color, compared to their L counterparts, no matter which one you are talking about. 35 F/2, check, 50 1.4, check, 85 1.8, check. However, this is also not shown in the test. Backlit with harsh light, and very pale scenario in itself doesn't show the capability of 35L at all -- however, if you tak a picture with a girl in red, you'll soon see the difference.
Yes, color saturation is no longer that important nowadays. However, it does give a lot more space to manipulate. As another example, 17-40L is almost a perfect lens. It just lacks of a little color. The color tendering in the 16-35L's are slightly smoother.
You only get this idea after you've used both of them for a long time, and there are differences in the end, and the little convinence in every photo you take piles up over time.
C. Focus speed. It's very obvious. So very obvious. 35 F/2 is fast, but it's just not compared to 35L
D, Build quality, well that's quite ok actually..35 F/2 is well built. Just not as well as 35 1.4. It's also lighter, so someone may even prefer the 35 F/2.
In case that we involve the price tag, let me tell you two things:
1. One would always pay a lot more just for the last bit of the advantage of it. It should be in a log scale: 100% more effective, 10 times the price.50% more effective, 3 times the price. etc.
2. the pric of a used 35L kept almost constant in the last 3 or 4 years. It's only recently that so many deals on the 35L poped out that the price dropped a bit. Canon L lenses are just like a good investment, you buy it new today, you sell it used 10 years later, you get everything back, plus the interest rate, plus the inflation rate. Non L lenses may not be as lucky. The luckier and lower volumes ones got their value reserved; the mass produced ones drop drastically in value. It's wiser to buy Ls than non-Ls even on the moneytary side of the story.
|
