[Planar_head]

Post-processing does this for free.
 
Shoot RAW, post-process. If done correctly, the result will look very natural.
 
I'm also not surprised that you haven't found a more contrasty lens than the Zeiss. I don't see anyone raving about Canon colors compared to say, Zeiss or Leica colors. Perhaps I'm not looking close enough. I'd guess the latter.
 
Honestly, there's only so much a lens can do. When you reach 100% light transmission (I wouldn't be surprised if the Zeiss got close), then from there it's either the sensor that has to capture more color information, or you fix the perceived lack of contrast or saturation in post.
 
Vignetting is a problem (especially when the corners drop +1EV) because at that point, the corners of the sensor are not getting as much light as the center. Therefore, when you go to fix the vignetting in post, the corners will have more noise in them compared to the center of the image. How much this matters, I'm not really sure. I shoot mostly old full-frame glass that barely vignettes on crop sensors anyway.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Is vignetting such a large issue these days with peripheral illumination correction and all that?  I'm more and more into center contrast, vividness, and "pop" these days, and by darn, the Canon 35 F2 and 50 F1.8 REALLY look very, very similar.  I was hoping the more expensive 35 F2 would give me a little extra here in terms of contrasty "pop," but not to be.  The Zeiss 35mm F2 did have a tiny more of that but not worth $1000+, especially with no autofocus.  What other "normal" lenses would do that for less money..?

My suggestion continues to be the Tokina 35mm F2.8 Macro. I know it's not quite as fast a you want, but IMO optically it's in the same league with the Zeiss and Canon L. I haven't seen what Nikon's new pro grade 35mm can do, but based on the 24mm, I'd say the Tokina should be able to hang in there with it. For $280 I think it's a steal. Even with that though, you're going to need to spend some time with Photoshop to get the best results.

 

[Jon L]

Getting a feel for Canon 35mmF2, now shooting with one tick up in sharpness and contrast, with very slight jpeg processing.  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

[Jon L]

 
 

 

[Jon L]

Had a chance to play with the old Canon 28-70mm F2.8L lens (Bottom) and compare with Canon 50mmF1.4 (Top). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jon L]

 

[heatherjebos0]

/img/forum/go_quote.gif


Just like with hi-fi, you are buying into a photographic SYSTEM, not just a body or lens...hehe...welcome to the world of photography, sorry about your wallet

Canon's church of L glass has many followers, but it is certainly not necessary to have fancy lenses in order to make great photos. I would recommend you pick up a cheap (but very good) 50mm fixed focal length lens for your new body, and then you're set...shooting a prime lens has a way of encouraging photographers to "make" rather than "take" photos. I don't currently use Canon gear, but it should cost approx. $100, like this f/1.8 version (B&;H link)...maybe someone else has a better recommendation. Anyway, that's my $.02. Beyond a decent 50mm prime and a versatile zoom or two, anything else you spend on lenses is really unnecessary for most photography--diminishing returns and all that. Shoot, I use a 35mm prime and a 50mm prime for 95% of my photo work...the optical quality is exceptional, the price is right, and the fixed focal lengths are more fun!

That Canon f/1.2 85mm lens is drool worthy though...

Thanks for your explanation! It's quite useful.