Does the difference show up in prints? 24-70L vs. 35mm 1.4L...

[splproductions]

I can see a difference in sharpness between my 50 and 85mm primes when compared with my 24-70L when I'm editing them in LR, doing a 100% crop, etc. I'm sure I'd see a difference on the computer with the 35mm L as well.

Since I have very little experience printing though... my question is... will these differences be readily apparent when printed at 12"x18" (or larger) when viewed from the appropriate distance? Say you're shooting both lenses at 35mm at f/3.2 to 4.0.

Thanks!

 

[imagesliveon]

I didn't think you could see a significant difference in quality between lenses on the computer as most monitors are less than 2mp!

 

[splproductions]

But if you zoom in on an area of the picture, you're now seeing just a small section of the photo on that 2mp screen.

I just didn't know if the conversion from a digital file you can zoom in on, to a print that gets viewed from a reasonable distance negates that extra little bit of sharpness.

 

[zombiemann]

I have zero experience with L lenses but everything I have ever been taught tells me the 35mm prime L would have better sharpness than 24-70L shooting at 35mm. I don't know how much difference it would make to an untrained eye looking at a print, but a photographer would be able to tell the difference most likely.

 

[rexbobcat]

It depends.

Having a sharper lenses means that the photo will have more absolute resolution than a less sharp lens on the same camera.

So with a sharper lens you should be able to print bigger without worrying about too much noticeable degradation in image quality.

I'm not sure how big the differences between the 24-70 and the 35mm is, however

 

[Big Mike]

There are a lot of factors involved...between the time you pick up the camera and when the print is hung on a wall and viewed. For example, even a small amount of blur from camera shake can kill all the improved sharpness that you pay for with those expensive lenses.

But yes, I'd think that (in some situations) someone might be able to see the superior image quality characteristics in the large print.

 

[Derrel]

I dunno...wide-angles have always been a weak area of Canon's optics....

Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: 17mm


Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: 21mm


Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: 21mm


Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: 28mm

FOR THE MONEY spent on a Canon 35/1.4-L, I think it'd actually be smarter to buy a Zeiss. Of course, $800 or so sunk into the best tripod and best tripod head you can afford is worth probably $10,000 worth of "lens sharpness".

 

[Derrel]

SO...I: went and looked at the photozone.de review of the 35mm 1.4-L...

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM L - Full Format Lab Test Report / Review - Analysis

I would say that,based on their results, that the lens is not near optimal at f/3.2 to f/4...BUT, the bad thing is that the 24-70 f/2.8 Canon L lens at the closest tested focal length to 35mm, which was 40mm, offers ALMOST THE SAME resolution figures as the 35 prime lens....within a couple of hundred line pairs per picture height, and UNDER 3,000 lines
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis

....so...these figures are well below what better lenses and better, higher-resolution cameras produce. How much resolution one's PRINTER can actually deliver is also another subject that would factor into this question....Ctein did a nice article on that less than year ago...Google search for that.