Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2

[Mt Spokane Photography]

DXO rates it a lot higher than the Canon 35mm L.  Even though the Canon has higher resolution, lower distortion, and about the same viginetting.  The 35mml does have more CA, but that is because its f/1.4.
Somehow, DXO seems to give CA a huge weight, unless you are looking at Nikon lenses with super high CA's and then it doesn't seem to count at all.
 
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/342/(lens2)/797/(brand1)/Zeiss/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/483

[drjlo]

DXO rates it a lot higher than the Canon 35mm L.  Even though the Canon has higher resolution, lower distortion, and about the same viginetting.  The 35mml does have more CA, but that is because its f/1.4.
Somehow, DXO seems to give CA a huge weight, unless you are looking at Nikon lenses with super high CA's and then it doesn't seem to count at all.
 
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/342/(lens2)/797/(brand1)/Zeiss/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/483

That is an odd conclusion by DXO even if you go by their own numbers.  When I had Canon 35L, Canon 35 f/2, and Zeiss ZE 35 f/2, I personally thought the 35L gave the best IQ, not even considering its autofocus capability. 

[AprilForever]

DXO is way lame...