Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses? I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron. Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?
Well, pas mal Infared didnt mention his 150-500 cause then you could draw some rather interesting comparisons;
how does it make sense comparing 35mm and 50mm res in the context of choosing a 35mm? And if it does, then how about comparing 35mm and 85mm or 35 and 24mm? What about 200mm, shall we compare them also?
If someone is on the market for a 35mm he will be interested on 35mm lenses only, not how they fare with some other random category.
Plus, Infared mentioned his sigma 50/1.4 to make a point about his experience with sigma's bokeh rendering unrelatedly to his opinion on 35/2IS
Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.
The new one seems to have better corners & Ca but center res & distorion on par with the old one, I would deem that okayish not "pretty great" specially considering the old one is 22years old and 1/3 in price, IS notwithstanding.