Canon EF 35mm f / 1.4L II USM

Advantages: Ultrasonic, everything is clear, quiet and fast, the top series is not for everyone, MRF 0.28, the absence of aberrations and inaccuracies with the correct setup, crazy detailing even on an open diaphragm, appearance, build quality, fashionable blend in the set.

Disadvantages: Price. Although ... If a photo does not bring you money, there is absolutely no sense in taking such glass, unless you wriggle out in front of your friends. There are analogues, for example, the first series, or the same FR, but lower class, f / 2 for example. Deficiencies in the design and quality of the images were not revealed.

Comment: I own this beauty since December of that year. Carcass - nick mark 3. What can I say. Glass for all occasions. In theory, more and do not need a tower for the classics.

Ideal for shtatki, events, landscapes, architecture.

Advantages: 35mm - perfect focal; can be used as a staff member in 90% of cases.
Highly distributed over the WHOLE field, ABSOLUTELY WORKING with f / 1.4, no chromatism. A little more comfortable, compared with 35L1, hood, cover.

Disadvantages: lack of chromatism - oddly enough. Almost perfectly boring picture. Longer and heavier than the first version, the weight distribution is broken, looks like some kind of cheap zoom :)

Comment: In the first version (I used two copies for 9 years), I liked the coloring of the image in the unsharp area - i.e. optical deficiency played a positive role. In general, I liked the picture.
In the new version of the "picture" is not particularly visible. For "drawing" is a set of manifestations of optical aberrations :)
However, it’s stupid to blame for good;) I don’t know about 300 / 2.8Л2 and longer ones, but for focal ones less than 200mm (in canon version) the new 35L2 is the absolute champion in resolution.
Another question is whether these “lines by mm” are needed ... For astrophotographers they are needed, for example.
I guess so:
- creative photographers hardly care about resolution at the edges of the field. They are more important than the beauty of the picture, the speed of autofocus, reliability. 35L1 will play great here
- for technical photography (subject, astrophoto), which does not impose any requirements for autofocus, Sigma Art 35 / 1.4 would be an excellent choice - costing 2.5 times less than L2
- if money is not a pity and / or you just want the best - it is 35L2. The lens with the worst combination of price and quality :)

Advantages: So! He focuses faster!)
If he became sharper with a bit, maybe there it was so super)
At the moment I couldn’t do aberrations at all, took pictures against the light and so on, waiting for sunny weather to dissolve this glass for aberration - there are none! Because of this, the background has become more smooth and gentle.
In the dark, it focuses better than my first 35k
Cool left 72mm thread

Disadvantages: Became heavier by more than 200g and a few cm longer
Became expensive already in two) maybe it and I do not know well)
Especially nothing to complain about, the glass behaves flawlessly

Comment: If there is a grandmother on this object - take it. If not - the first 35ka is a great choice and you should not bathe. The changes are not significant, the objectives are more likely to calm the soul or the inner ego.