kin2son wrote in post #14024972
Well isn't it a little bit unfair to the 50 1.4 then? If you really have to compare, you should compare 35L and 50L.
Anyway, I'd say yes 35L is sharper than the 50 1.4 @ f1.4 that's for sure. Is that really a surprise to you? Like you said, you are paying 4X more in the end.
I don't think I would compare the 35L and 50L. The 50L seems to do one thing, f1.2. It doesn't seem to be particularly sharp, especially across the corners, until f4. And even there it is not impressive for a prime. The DOF you can achieve with the 50 1.2 is pretty mind blowing, but it's too much of a specialty type lens. The 35L seems to be a great general use prime lens and is very sharp all over the range. This is based on tests and what I have read. I just wanted to confirm this from a few more people before I bite on the 35 L.
Also, even though the 35mm f1.4L lens is 4x more, I just don't see it performing 4x as good as the 50mm f1.4, so that's why it actually would be a huge surprise. The 50mm f1.4 performs very well, ESPECIALLY for the price. Probably the best bang for your buck lens going, but I would like to hear from a few more people that the 35mm L is really something special before I buy it.
I'm not trying to be defensive or sarcastic in any way. We're all entitled to our opinions. So again, this is from what I have heard and the tests that I have seen on the lenses.