kellystonelake wrote:
Yeah, Tom got it - the right side on all images is the L.
Boy, that\'s a surprise. While I wrote that the differences seemed largely insignificant to me, I presumed that the images were mixed up left/right. If someone offered me money to make guesses about which were and were not the L examples, I most certainly would not have come up with the idea that all of the left side images were done with the L.
I own three non-L primes and two L primes. There is a lot of \"L worship\" that is not necessarily justified in many cases. When a good non-L alternative exists, I buy that and use it. (And, by the way, my print standards are quite high.) When the non-L alternatives at a focal length I need are less compelling, I\'ll spring for the L.
At 35mm, the non-L alternative is really a very fine performer. The 35mm f/2 lens produces lovely image quality in all ways. The only image \"flaw\" I can find with it is that it can produce a slightly less sharp image in the furthest corners on full frame... but not in a way that you would notice in a print.
The fun irony of this is that the 35mm L looks so damn \"pro\" and studly next to the (almost embarassingly) wimpy little 35mm f/2 that many simply can\'t bring themselves to believe that it really performs as well as it does. I often, however, enjoy popping the 35mm f/2 on my camera when shooting around folks trying to impress with their Big Lenses, knowing that the photographic results I will produce will be top notch.
Take care,
Dan
Jan 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #10237277 « 35 L vs. 35 2.0 »
