Gear Talk > Lenses
35mm L vs. 135mm L. IQ?
Leopard Lupus:
I own both the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L and the 135mm f/2 L, and love them for certain situations. Both are tack sharp, which is great. But while speaking with a Nikon shooting friend of mine, he asked "which is sharper?"
I replied it depends on the situation, of course. But my question here is, has anyone ever done an IQ test comparing these two great pieces of glass? I could perform the test myself, but not having done a test of this nature before, I have no idea where to start. Sure this is just for fun as I will be keeping both, but does anyone know?
neuroanatomist:
The 35L is slightly sharper in the center of the frame. The 135L is quite a bit sharper away from the center of the frame. So, as an overall average, I'd say the 135L is the sharper of the two, and it also has less CA.
Mt Spokane Photography:
As a general rule, it is easier to design a sharp telephoto lens than a wide angle, and I do feel that my 135mm L is sharper than my 35mmL wide open. Both produce supurb images, so its a fine point that isn't really relevant. A 200mm f/2 L wins hands down.
DavidRiesenberg:
For a resolution comparison, take a look here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Basically it's a wash in the center, with the 35 perhaps having a slight edge at some apertures. Only at 1.4 it gets noticeably "softer" but that's the nature of the game. At the edges, the 135 does have a visible advantage.
Leopard Lupus:
Thank you all for the quick and informative replies! Now the next question is, how do you convert a Nikon shooter to Canon? haha :P
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version