Quote:35/1.4 is nothing of a wow these days, 30 years ago I had one and there's no manufacturer around who didn't make at least one of these. Literally, there are and have been dozens of these lenses. Which says something about people demanding AND buying them. With "breathtaking" I took the liberty to exaggerate a little, as there are some lenses around like f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.95. That would be something really new for a 35, but instead Canon was clever and focused on some real improvements like the bokeh fringing. Now, with something like 45% more costs than the old version I think it's a valid question " is that all? No bokeh fringing? High centre resolution, but only good corners?" I'm looking forward to lenscore's results to compare them to other 35'sLet me repeat it: in the SLR land, f/1.4 is as good as it gets, and then, the only faster lenses in the 35mm range on FF, the f/1.2 Voigtlanders version 1 and 2, are only 1/3 of a stop faster. Regarding the difference in quality between versions 1 and 2 of the Canon L lens, we cannot be sure since they have been tested on sensors of wildly different (like 2.5x different) resolution! But check out the SLRGear review which was done on 1Ds Mark III - the blur plot is beyond remarkable wide open; many lenses struggle to reach that kind of (even) sharpness at their optimal apertures.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.p...816/cat/10
Again, there is no direct comparison there as the 35L non-II was only tested ages ago on a 5D, but even there it was nowhere near as sharp and well-behaved.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.p...148/cat/10
Dang, I never thought I'd caught defending a Canon L lens...
I'd get a Sigma (if I had needed a f/1.4 lens at 35mm) or a Tamron (if I had just needed a 35mm prime) and be done with it; either of the Ls is out of my scope.