# 35mm L vs. 135mm L. IQ?



## Leopard Lupus (Jan 13, 2012)

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 (Jan 13, 2012)

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 (Jan 13, 2012)

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 (Jan 13, 2012)

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 (Jan 13, 2012)

Thank you all for the quick and informative replies! Now the next question is, how do you convert a Nikon shooter to Canon? haha


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 13, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> Thank you all for the quick and informative replies! Now the next question is, how do you convert a Nikon shooter to Canon? haha



If I were a Nikon Shooter, I'd stick with Nikon unless there were some particular must have feature that another manufacturer offered, and it was going to allow me to acomplish something that I badly needed to do. 

The real world differences between Nikon and Canon cameras tend to be fine points that do not effect most of a shooters images. 

Three years ago, video was one of the things that drove many to the Canon 5D MK II. Now, everyone has it, so its much less of a reason.

I maintain that 90% of the equation depends on the photographer using his knowledge of photography and properly getting the most of his equipment. Some get some pretty good images from a camera phone that I'd wished I had taken. 

Sometimes, there are situations where having the right equipment can allow capture of a image in extreme low light, for example, but now, even a point and shoot like the G1X appears to take reasonably clean images at ISO 3200, so those barriers are going down as well.


----------



## JR (Jan 13, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> 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?"



Having owned both myself as well I would echo Neuro and Mt Spokane conclusion that the 135L might win this photo finish in terms of shapnest. This is based on simply looking at the various sample I have from both lens (recently sold my 35 1.4L because I am hoping for the mk II soon!)



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> [If I were a Nikon Shooter, I'd stick with Nikon unless there were some particular must have feature that another manufacturer offered, and it was going to allow me to acomplish something that I badly needed to do.



What about the lens argument? Am with you that differences are getting slimmer, but for example, the 85 1.2L II from Canon does not really have an equivalent with Nikon. Same for the 50 1.2L. Not sure how is the current Nilon 135mm compared to Canon but the point is can one use "the better lens" argument as I have heard on many occasion on this site as the reason to pick Canon? Or do you feel it is more or less a wash now with some of the newer lens Nikon came out with (35, 24 and 85 1.4G for example).


----------



## Cosk (Jan 13, 2012)

You should have just confidently said 'this one, but only by about 6%'

(It doesn't matter which one you hold up... Your friend is not going to verify your numbers anyhow.)

After all, 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jan 13, 2012)

If he's into macro, there's always this argument: Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens


But for me, the original reason I went to Canon many years ago still holds true today. Ergonomics. The general shape, the buttons placement, rear dial .etc made more sense to my hands and brain. So I don't know how much experience he has with handling Canon cameras but you could try to use the MIGHTY REAR DIAL as a selling point.


----------



## jcns (Jan 13, 2012)

2 very different tools for very different situations.
That's not even close to being a valid question.
To illustrate my point; if the 135 is sharper, are you going to leave the 35 behind and use the 135 instead?


----------



## iaind (Jan 13, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> Thank you all for the quick and informative replies! Now the next question is, how do you convert a Nikon shooter to Canon? haha




Between the posts at Murrayfield


----------



## willrobb (Jan 16, 2012)

Cosk said:


> After all, 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.



Definite +1 for that


----------



## willrobb (Jan 16, 2012)

iaind said:


> Leopard Lupus said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you all for the quick and informative replies! Now the next question is, how do you convert a Nikon shooter to Canon? haha
> ...



Iain, tried to give +2 for that but it wasn't having any of it. Wonder if I'm the only one who gets the meaning? 

Can't wait to get back to Edinburgh....


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 16, 2012)

There is also the apparent fact that WA lenses and large aperture lenses are prone to some effects on recent DSLR bodies (since the 5D classic, and including all the recent APS-C cameras) due to the photosite construction, so a slightly slower (relative aperture) tele lens may perform better.

The 135mm f/2L performs pretty well with a full set of Kenko extenders on for the macro range, but other than that I agree with jcns that any distinction is merely academic. Both lenses could certainly be improved somewhat with newer formulas and glass, and IS would theoretically be an improvement as well. In practice, though, both lenses seem great and you would probably get very diminished returns on sharpness or uniformity with a newer lens, for the considerable price hike to be expected.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 16, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> Thank you all for the quick and informative replies! Now the next question is, how do you convert a Nikon shooter to Canon? haha


LOL i converted to canon, I picked a couple of 1D bodies up ages ago really cheap so i grabbed a 28-300L and began using the canons and once i got used to the canon system and control layout i found i prefered it to the nikon, my wife kept using the nikon and we started doubling up on lenses so decided to sell the nikon gear and consolodate to completely canon. But with the way things are shaking out with current cameras coming out i see more people going the other way.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 17, 2012)

Yeah, Nikon's D4 looks very enticing (that ISO 6400 sample of the speed skater, wow!), and they are starting to improve on lenses, though they are still missing some of the features of the specialized but affordable lenses that Canon offers. Sigma is stepping up to the plate too, which makes it easier to move from one system to another because you aren't locked in as much. I expect good things from the 1D X but both systems are good. For me the real question is how they are going to modernize their smaller format cameras, and how they are going to modernize their lens lineup. The 200-400mm with integrated extender is a good sign, of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Sigma is stepping up to the plate too, which makes it easier to move from one system to another because you aren't locked in as much.



How so? If I have a collection of Canon-mount Sigma lenses, can I have them converted to Nikon mounts?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 17, 2012)

No, sorry to be misleading - my reasoning is that losses from switching to the Nikon mount versions shouldn't be too bad, and if there is a Sigma lens you use in EF mount it should be available in Nikon mount as well. So being familiar with a Sigma lens on Canon won't mean that you'd lose the possibility of using an equivalent lens on Nikon.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 17, 2012)

I can't figure out the point of his question: why does it matter whether a wide angle is more or less sharp than a telephoto?

Maybe he is looking for a reason to change systems! ;D


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 18, 2012)

This is kind of like comparing a Mercedes S600 with a Ferrari 458 Italia, they are both bad ass cars but serve different purposes. 35L and 135L are both AWESOME lenses and both have amazing IQ, but I just don't see the sense in comparing the two, seeing as the focal lengths are so far apart.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Jan 19, 2012)

It was more for the sake of an entertaining conversation than anything. Both lenses are incredibly sharp and a joy to use, but when someone asks which is sharper (which when it comes down to it, really doesn't matter) it's nice to be able to give reasoning as to strong and weak points of both pieces of glass from different owners other than myself. Thanks for all of the replies!


----------

