# DXO 35L II review - sharp like a katana, lower score than the Sigma Art



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

DXO put out another lens review and I read it and tried to understand it. 

Shatner-esque inner monologue: _ "Why do I hurt myself like this?"
_
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4L-II-USM-review-New-benchmark-for-open-aperture-performance

The 35L II is sharp across the frame at f/1.4, while the Sigma Art is slightly less so. But Canon got a lower sharpness and overall score anyway. Same score as the 35 f/2 IS USM. A paltry three points better than the original 35L.

Glad they put the 35L II through it's paces on Canon's highest resolving rig, *the 5D Mark III*.

Lucy pulls the football away again. I always fall for it.

#DXOOOOOOO #sayitlikeKHAAAAAAN

- A


----------



## Viggo (Oct 30, 2015)

The transmission surprises me a bit. 1.5 with the sigma vs 1.7 with the 35 II.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

Viggo said:


> The transmission surprises me a bit. 1.5 with the sigma vs 1.7 with the 35 II.



The article states that the L is sharp across the frame at f/1.4 but in narrow apertures the Sigma wins. 

Can someone tell me how you compare two seemingly identical splotches of bright green on their field maps? Most people would use numbers or bar charts or something.

- A


----------



## TeT (Oct 30, 2015)

DxO is being difficult again...


----------



## cpsico (Oct 31, 2015)

I have this lens, it is flawless in every single way


----------



## deleteme (Oct 31, 2015)

I have found DXO very puzzling in this regard.
I looked at zoom lenses and the Tamrons scored very well and exceeded virtually every other zoom. Their actual numbers in each category were not as good as competing lenses from Canon and Nikon Yet they still outscored them.

While I acknowledge the fact that they are nice I scarcely believe they exceed the best from Canon and Nikon.

Or.... maybe I need to look at Tamrons. ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2015)

Viggo said:


> The transmission surprises me a bit. 1.5 with the sigma vs 1.7 with the 35 II.



T/1.5 is _much_ better than T/1.7 for shooting in a dimly lit warehouse. Therefore, it's clear the Sigma lens deserves a higher score.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 31, 2015)

Meh, DXO.

After initial bedding in issues I love it. Worth the money? Hmm, not so sure considering the weight increase too. The Sigma would be something I'd like to try out but have no experience with.


----------



## leoyuho (Nov 3, 2015)

i always take DXO score with a grain of himalayan pink ;D ;D


----------



## meywd (Nov 3, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> Meh, DXO.
> 
> After initial bedding in issues I love it. Worth the money? Hmm, not so sure considering the weight increase too. The Sigma would be something I'd like to try out but have no experience with.



Amazing, now I really really want it :-\


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 3, 2015)

*DxO*:

*D*o optical measurments and get data for your SW.
E*x*it writing reviews and rankings.
*O*ptimize you products.

That will increase your reputation and profit much more than the *b*iased *s*cores you do now.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 3, 2015)

DXO needs to get a tester like the one Lens Rentals has. Then they also should test coma and some of the other attributes.

Astigmatism, coma, etc. But, coming up with a value for sharpness is difficult. Most testers give a value for the center, but measuring falloff of sharpness towards the edge and giving it a value that means anything is impossible. Some testers have tried to average it, but that's no good, so showing the colored graph seems to be a good way for depicting the performance of the lens from edge to edge.

I'm not a fan of testing lenses on a camera simply because so many other variables come into play. There is no such thing as a perfectly aligned camera, the mount is always off, the angle of light striking photo sites is different from camera to camera, the accuracy of the sensor alignment varies by individual camera, I've read that the built-in correction for light fall off at the outer pixels is done according to a internal data table for each lens in the camera firmware, there are just too many variables. Comparing from brand to brand is even worse.


----------

