<div>


Quote Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I get the same impression looking at Bryan's charts, but it is so close I wouldn't even consider IQ as a differentiating factor. In real wold use, I'm very impressed with the IQ of the 35.

For sharpness, yes. But I have the sense that color and contrast are better with the 24L II (from both Rick's comments and some images of 35L vs. 135L that Denise shared with me where the 135L and the Sigma 85/1.4 appeared to do better in those areas than the 35L, indicating room for improvement in the 35L's performance.
</div>



Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
But the real feel in difference of the two lenses is the DOF. Here is a good comparison, you want a really good background blur on someone standing 4' in front of you.

Ahhh...but, do I? If I want a portrait with a really good background blur, I'd likely use a longer fast lens (85/1.2, for example). My current thinking is that for situational low-light shooting - capturing family moments in ambient light indoors - a thinner DoF might be a disadvantage, as those types of shots are likely to include more than one person that I want within the DoF. Thus, the shorter focal length (and correspondingly deeper DoF) may be preferable for my uses.



<div>


Quote Originally Posted by Trowski
Here's a couple sample photos I took only 2 days after receiving the lens...Bokeh-licious!
<div>Thanks for sharing! Same concern here as my response to Rick, but even more true at 50mm. However, I'm getting more interested in the 50/1.2 for portraits with a larger FOV. With the 85/1.2, it can be challenging to get more than one person in a portrait in a normal-sized room. Plus, there's a rebate available now... </div>
<div></div>
<div>Question for you, Troswki - how's the AF speed on the 50L? </div>
</div>
<div></div>