I remember that thread. I was a bit surprised that the 35/1.8 did as well as it did in your tests. With reference to a couple other images from the thread. I think post #17 by newst pretty much captures what I think is typical lower-contrast performance of the 1.8. Also, I agree with BIngley in post #20 that the 35/2 performed well on this difficult shot where the 35/1.8 would have been washed out.
Unfortunately, I usually only pull out a couple of lenses to play around with when the weather is lousy, because if it is nicer I am more likely to do something outside. I am curious of how the Canon and Fuji would perfom in nicer weather, may have to try it out once it stops raining in my neighborhood.
I hope you don't mind if I point out what I see as flaws in the above reasoning process.
I own both the f2 and f1.8 so I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just interested in a valid comparison, removing from consideration factors like fog, haze, scratches and other optical anomalies that often plague these older lenses.
For years I'd seen almost nothing but fuzzy low contrast photos from the f1.8 lens posted online. I was beginning to wonder whether that lens was even capable of clear, sharp images with proper contrast, without manipulation in post. That's the whole reason I got an f1.8, cleaned it of considerable fog, took some photos under lighting conditions which I'd normally encounter (posted at the beginning of that thread), and then did a controlled test of both the f1.8 and f2 shooting the exact same scene (images #18 and #19) so I could get a very valid comparison. I wanted an answer based on facts, not conjecture and one based on clean, properly working copies of both lenses.
Are there differences in rendering and contrast? Yes, but I think the images I presented show the two versions can be and often are much closer than most people think. But I am completely willing to revise my judgment IF someone presents clear evidence of significant differences in rendering produced under controlled conditions.
Back to my impression of flaws in the reasoning:
1) You claim photo #17 is representative of the lower contrast of the f1.8 lens. That image has the harshest backlight of any of the dozen or two images in the entire thread, and is the only photo riddled with obvious lens flare artifacts as a result of having the mid day sun directly in the frame. No corresponding image was provided for the f2 lens for comparison purposes. I believe the f2 lens would produce similar low contrast images under these lighting conditions. But we can't know for sure without a photo made under the same conditions.
The f1.8 lens may indeed have lower contrast, and I believe it does . . . but it's to a relatively small degree as illustrated by the photos I posted from my clean copy of the f1.8.
If there had been a similar image taken by the f2 lens under the same conditions, and if it showed much less flare, then I would have agreed with you. But without a comparison, it's foolhardy to draw any significant conclusions about the typical workings of the f1.8 lens from that image.
A foggy or extremely low contrast image often tells us more about the effects of fog than any characteristics of the lens itself.
2) Steve (Bingley) asserted in photo #20, taken with his f2 lens, that the image could not have been made with his f1.8 lens without significantly more flare. Steve may be right, but there's no way for us to know. Unfortunately his statement is just conjecture because we have no direct evidence to support it. There was no contemporary image made of the same scene with his f2 lens.
Steve may also be mistaken for a variety of reasons. We don't know the condition of Steve's copy of the f1.8 lens upon which he's basing his assumption. Many if not most of these older lenes are hazy/foggy to varying degrees. IF Steve's copy was afflicted with even a modest amount of haze, then its performance, upon which Steve based his impression of all f1.8 lenses, was not representative of a properly working example. In general, most newer, f2 lenses are less likely to be fogged, solely by virtue of their newer date of manufacture and less time subject to outgassing from the lubricants.
There are over half a dozen photos posted in my thread from my clean copy of the f1.8. I think if you examine them closely it's clear they don't exhibit the drastically lowered contrast many are reporting.
I think it's more logical to draw conclusions about a lens' performance from a known good/clean copy than from a copy whose condition is not clearly established and which may have been compromised.
I've gone on long enough. Hope someone has the time to do further controlled testing.
