Canon 35/2 test v2.0

[edward_h]

There were a few complaints about me not having shown the edges, so

here's a real-life example.<br>

<br>

Hope it's better...<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://edward.dyndns.org/stuff/Canon%2035mm%20f2%20test%20v2.0.jpg">http://edward.dyndns.org/stuff/Canon%2035mm%20f2%20test%20v2.0.jpg</a>

[chiswick_john]

looks like a good lens doesn't it - even sharpness across the frame and no obvious CA - thanks for the 2nd test.

[josh1]

Once again, what exactly does this test show? Well, I can deduce that this lens performs better at f4 than at f2. Interesting...very interesting...

[danield]

>Once again, what exactly does this test show?

 

I wouldn't really dismiss the test - it is useful to see the actual quality of the lens in itself. Yes, It's not a 100% foolproof test with resolution charts and controlled lighting. But I'm sure a lot of people can make the comparison with the quality they usually get from their own lenses and get a fairly good idea about this individual lens.

 

I am personally quite interested even in this kind of information - and the poster is doing a valuable effort.

[marknagel]

Thanks, I'm looking at this lens and the 28/1.9 and Tam28-70. Its nice to see actual photos.

 

Mark

[chiswick_john]

"Once again, what exactly does this test show?" - err what exactly do you want to see? perhaps you could enlighten Edward and us on an alternative way to show lens quality at various apertures in the center and corner of the frame?

[grant g]

Much better. My only question would be: Did you use MLU?

[josh1]

<i>err what exactly do you want to see?</i>

 

<p>well i guess i just find these sorts of things more useful when they are making a comparison with another similar lens or something. then you can have controlled variables so that the lens is the only variable. would it be meaningful for me to download edwards pictures with the 35/2 onto my computer and then compare them with pictures i've taken with my 24-70L? not really cause the conditions and settings and subject matter and processing for the photos would be entirely different.

 

<p>so as far as this test goes, i've learned that the 35/2 lens performs better at f4 than it does at f2, and that its better towards the center of the frame then it is near the edges. oh gee, thats a shocker. but you guys are right, i shouldn't complain when someone is posting tests of their lenses for free out of the good will of their heart. i wasn't really intending to bitch about this, just stating that maybe if your going to go to the work of doing tests, it might be more useful to post comparison shots with a different lens. thats all. i'm done now.

[josh1]

and while on this subject...since i just noticed another similar post in this forum testing 70-200L...what exactly is the actual definition of a "lens test"? if i take a picture of something and post a crop of the picture or scan along with the details of what camera, aperture, fstop, iso, etc. were used, does it then become a "test"? in that case, i have hundreds of lens tests sitting around if anyone would like to see them...

[night73]

The 35 2.0 is a great and very sharp portrait lens for a small studio. Also a great walk around lens. Worth every penny.

[gary w. graley]

On film body, I never warmed up to the 35mm for some reason, but on my 20D, it's the lens of choice for me, very easily hand holdable and quite sharp as well, I parted with my 24mm which was my fav on film, but for some reason it wasn't as good on the 20D.<br>G2

[yakim_peled1]

I use a film body and my max enlargements are ~18X25cm. At this magnification I see the lens as sharp enough center to corner and do not see any sharpness increase when you stop it down.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.