EF 35 1.4L II vs 16-35 2.8L III - Sharpness comparison.

I did a small comparison between these lenses at both 2.8 and 5.6 @35mm for comparison purposes. I used an informal test with a tripod at the same distance, same aperture and same speed all at ISO 100. Interesting note is the JPG's images are closer in sharpness so I am including images of unprocessed raw. I also did a 1.4 on the 35 but it hit max TV speed so its a little overexposed. I will post later. It should be obvious which is which but will leave that unannounced for the time being.

JPEG Version Comparison - Camera Processed.

I will note there is definitely a color difference which I can only attribute to the Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics Element.

Which lens is which side? Which lens is the sharpest in your test? Curious because I have the 35mm f/1.4 L.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18639028
Which lens is which side? Which lens is the sharpest in your test? Curious because I have the 35mm f/1.4 L.

The 35 1.4 is the one on the right in both photos. It is definitely sharper. However with that in mind the 16-35 is also pretty sharp as well just not as much as the prime. Side by side however you can notice the difference. But that was to be expected.

Looks like the 35mm also focused more consistently. The 16-35 f/5.6 picture looks focused on the background more than the subject

Did you AFMA each lens before your test?

chuckmiller wrote in post #18640094
Did you AFMA each lens before your test?

No. I should have but did not. Great question though.

With same aperture, the bokeh is better on 1.4II

Ronny wrote in post #18656590
With same aperture, the bokeh is better on 1.4II

Agreed.

Can you do a test at F/1.4 ?

Oh wait you cant

There is really only one reason to jump on a 35 1.4

Zooms dont do F/1.4

Thats the only difference- everything else is pixel peeping

Print these images and you would never be able to tell which lens took the shot- especially if you are a consumer

I appreciate your efforts.

put a 24-70V2 in the test and you will see similar results

This should be the conclusions to your testing

Zooms dont go below F/2.8 for full frame sensors.......Primes Do

umphotography wrote in post #18656752
Can you do a test at F/1.4 ?

Oh wait you cant

There is really only one reason to jump on a 35 1.4

Zooms dont do F/1.4

Thats the only difference- everything else is pixel peeping

Print these images and you would never be able to tell which lens took the shot- especially if you are a consumer

I appreciate your efforts.

put a 24-70V2 in the test and you will see similar results

This should be the conclusions to your testing

Zooms dont go below F/2.8 for full frame sensors.......Primes Do

Thats a fair conclusion for the most part. You only have 1 thing wrong (About the zooms) :

https://www.amazon.com …-Lens-Canon/dp/B00DBL0NLQ

He said zooms don't go below 2.8 for full frame sensors.
You linked a crop sensor lens (which CAN be mounted on a full frame but with severe vignetting).
This is the link you should have posted, an f/2 zoom for full frame. This is the only FF zoom <f/2.8 that I'm aware of.

His point still stands, though. The newest zooms are so good that the biggest reason to get a prime is if you need to open up past f/2.8. There is also the size, weight and cost advantages that most primes have but the aperture is the biggest reason IMO.

I agree that the photographer cares more about some of these lens choices than the consumer does. Especially when they don't have a side by side comparison, they will be thrilled with the output that you give them. Aunt Bessie still looks like Aunt Bessie regardless of whether she was shot with a prime or a zoom. For the types of photos I sell (weddings, portraits, pet sessions), I'm selling memories... not outright gear technical aspects. If you are a landscape photographer or maybe architecture then the argument might swing in the opposite direction. Having said that I have made a bunch of money shooting architecture with a 10-18mm on a crop body.

Regardless of which genre you shoot, creativity and preparedness is more important than lighting which is way more important than gear.

Marm O. Set wrote in post #18656765
He said zooms don't go below 2.8 for full frame sensors.
You linked a crop sensor lens (which CAN be mounted on a full frame but with severe vignetting).
This is the link you should have posted, an f/2 zoom for full frame. This is the only FF zoom <f/2.8 that I'm aware of.

His point still stands, though. The newest zooms are so good that the biggest reason to get a prime is if you need to open up past f/2.8. There is also the size, weight and cost advantages that most primes have but the aperture is the biggest reason IMO.

I agree that the photographer cares more about some of these lens choices than the consumer does. Especially when they don't have a side by side comparison, they will be thrilled with the output that you give them. Aunt Bessie still looks like Aunt Bessie regardless of whether she was shot with a prime or a zoom. For the types of photos I sell (weddings, portraits, pet sessions), I'm selling memories... not outright gear technical aspects. If you are a landscape photographer or maybe architecture then the argument might swing in the opposite direction. Having said that I have made a bunch of money shooting architecture with a 10-18mm on a crop body.

Regardless of which genre you shoot, creativity and preparedness is more important than lighting which is way more important than gear.

Point taken. Thanks for the clarification.

sorry, I just re-read the first post and realized you weren't asking for feedback.

I'm really glad to see there is someone else out there that does what you did here I just did a bunch of this with my new lens yesterday LOL

*camera nerds*