IQ diff b/w 35L & 28 1.8?

Update:

Bought the 35L. Love this new lens yeah!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/headshotzx/5430​411837/

35L is much sharper out the gate at 1.4, and very very sharp by 2.0, while I wasn't thrilled with the 28 1.8 untill about f2.5 - f2.8

better colors/contrast/satura​tion with the 35L as well.

For a FF camera, yes, it is worth the difference - for me anyway. It is sharper throughout the entire aperture range, color and saturation is noticeable to me and of course, as expected, the build is much better. If you have the funds, it's worth it, if you don't then it's not. It depends on your photography goals and your financial situation.

There's a lens correction profile for the 35L in LR3 - it takes care of vignetting, distortion and lateral CA.

WhyFi wrote in post #11800737
There's a lens correction profile for the 35L in LR3 - it takes care of vignetting, distortion and lateral CA.

Some of the CA is not fixed? I noticed that I still get some ugly CA shooting wide open with the 35L... is that called Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations?

ilumo wrote in post #11800871
Some of the CA is not fixed? I noticed that I still get some ugly CA shooting wide open with the 35L... is that called Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations?

Yeah, different kind of CA - you get that shooting wide open with most fast lenses.

WhyFi wrote in post #11801014
Yeah, different kind of CA - you get that shooting wide open with most fast lenses.

That's more annoying. anyway to fix that in LR3? or do you need an app like PTlens, etc.

I was looking at this comparison and it didn't seem like much of a difference to me though!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Is the sharpness increase really that justifiable for another grand??

Apparently not if you have so much doubt. Just like any of the L lenses, you're going to be paying a huge premium for a marginal difference in performance for the best.

Don't buy an L lens just for the sharpness alone.

I've owned both. The 28mm is a great lens and very sharp when stopped down. Wide open it's it's got very nice blur, not as nice as the 35L but great for the money. Color and contrast the 35L is just unbelievable but that's what you pay for with an L lens.

hieu1004 wrote in post #11801997
Apparently not if you have so much doubt. Just like any of the L lenses, you're going to be paying a huge premium for a marginal difference in performance for the best.

Don't buy an L lens just for the sharpness alone.

I'd buy the 35L in a heartbeat if it was weathersealed like my 24-70 and 70-200 really! That's my only doubt (apart from the fact that on paper the sharpness doesn't seem that much different). I shoot in not-so-comfortable conditions all the time.

Headshotzx wrote in post #11802058
I'd buy the 35L in a heartbeat if it was weathersealed like my 24-70 and 70-200 really! That's my only doubt (apart from the fact that on paper the sharpness doesn't seem that much different). I shoot in not-so-comfortable conditions all the time.

The 35L performs just as wonderfully as my 24L II, which I believe is one of Canon's best. That AF is sure and does not hesitate, even in extremely low light. The contrast, colors, saturation is excellent and it is sharp throughout the aperture range. It's my most used lens on my 5DII.

Headshotzx wrote in post #11802058
I'd buy the 35L in a heartbeat if it was weathersealed like my 24-70 and 70-200 really! That's my only doubt (apart from the fact that on paper the sharpness doesn't seem that much different). I shoot in not-so-comfortable conditions all the time.

Okay, well that solves your problem right there.

mritchy wrote in post #11802120
Okay, well that solves your problem right there.

yup

This