Review on 📷 Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens: Precision and Clarity, Lens Only by Adam Mielczarek ᠌

I loved the coloring of the picture in the blur zone in the first version (of which I had two copies and used them for a total of nine years), which indicates that the optical defect played a beneficial function. In overall, I thought the drawing was quite cool. The "drawing" is not really discernible in the updated version of the document. Because what we refer to as a "drawing" is actually a collection of different optical aberrations:) On the other hand, it is foolish to reprimand someone forever;) The new 35L2 is the absolute champion in resolution for focal lengths less than 200mm (in the Kenon version), but I'm not sure about the 300/2.8L2 and longer ones. One last thing to consider is whether or not these "lines per mm" are essential. For example, astrophotographers have a need for them. I would put it like this: - Photographers who put their creativity first could care less about resolution at the field's margins. They are more significant than the aesthetic quality of the picture, how quickly the focusing works, and how reliable the device is. The 35L1 will perform admirably in this setting; for technical photography (such as subject or astrophotography) that does not require autofocus, the Sigma Art 35/1.4 is a wonderful choice and costs 2.5 times less than the L2; however, if you don't care about the cost and simply want the best, the 35L2 is the lens for you. The lens that has the worst ratio between price and quality:)