28mm/1.4 vs. 35mm/1.4

[Igor]

Very unexpected result! the $1,000 AF 28mm f1.4 turned out substantially softer wide open than the "ancient" $250 AIS 35mm f1.4.

Both shots ISO200, HIGH-STD-STD, f1.4, 1/6sec. Tripod.

Images 1:1 crops, unaltered, no USM, etc.

[Sneakyracer]

IMHO resolution tests are best performed using consistent and indirect strobe lightis or flash and/or higher light levels (preferably daylight) so as to use a higher shutter speed of about 1/125 sec and cancel any posibility of camera shake. Also the sensor works MUCH better with more light up to a point and it becomes even more critical with wide angle lenses designed for 35mm.

Also, 35mm seems to be the optimum focal length for the fuji S2 sensor, it "seems" to like it a lot. hard to explain. With wider lenses also dust in the sensor has a MUCH harsher effect.

[Igor]

Sure, but I read everywhere that the "one and only" 28/1.4 is DESIGNED for low light. That's why I tested it in low light. It IS good, but 35mm AIS turned out to be much better.

[smunky]

If you were shooting in low light, why were you shooting at iso 200?
curious

[Sneakyracer]

Originally posted by Igor
Sure, but I read everywhere that the "one and only" 28/1.4 is DESIGNED for low light. That's why I tested it in low light. It IS good, but 35mm AIS turned out to be much better.

Also, focus accuracy is paramount.

Yes its obvious that the 35mm f1.4 got the better of the 28mm in that test. Humm maybe ken rockwell just gave the 35mm f1.4 a bad undeserved reputation because of his review.

[Igor]

Smunky, because I wanted to minimize the noise. Does ISO make difference for sharpness testing? Curious.

Sneakyracer, I focused 35mm manually, and 28mm both manually and AF.