The 35G isn\'t soft. It might be a hair softer than the 24G, but that\'s not saying anything. I don\'t think it\'s material in practice. To my eye, the apparent softness of some of the samples in this thread comes from the nature of the subjects (e.g., smooth skin) and very shallow DOF at close focal distances.
Similarly, IMO it\'s not materially softer than the 35L--I own one (though no camera to do a head-to-head comparison with at the moment). Re: the 5D II test noted above, it\'s very hard to compare lenses when one camera has twice the resolving power of the other (assuming you weren\'t using a D3X). You really need to use an old 5D, and even then, it\'s important to note the 5D\'s weak AA filter.
Bottom line: the 24G, 35G, and 35L are all sharp lenses (assuming proper calibration, of course). There may be marginal differences, but I rather doubt they\'ll matter in practice.
The 35G isn\'t soft. It might be a hair softer than the 24G, but that\'s not saying anything. I don\'t think it\'s material in practice. The apparent softness of some of the samples in this thread comes from the nature of the subjects (e.g., smooth skin) and very shallow DOF at close focal distances. A few appear misfocused.
Similarly, IMO it\'s not materially softer than the 35L--I own one (though no camera to do a head-to-head comparison with at the moment). Re: the 5D II test noted above, it\'s very hard to compare lenses when one camera has twice the resolving power of the other (assuming you weren\'t using a D3X). You really need to use an old 5D, and even then, it\'s important to note the 5D\'s weak AA filter.
Bottom line: the 24G, 35G, and 35L are all sharp lenses (assuming proper calibration, of course). There may be marginal differences, but I rather doubt they\'ll matter in practice.
