85mm? Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 are more modern and better than the Canon equivalents which were released sometime during the 2nd word war it seems.
The 851.2 L is great, but heavy and unless you really really need 1.2, it only exists for wank value, something anyone with more money than brains will laud over everyone else.
Yes, I've used one extensively. Shame phase focus can't really nail the accuracy that F1.2 desperately needs very much, making it a slow job to actually use it and get it in focus, and if you're not at 1.2 the F1.4 is sharper anyway through 1.8-4.
You've not really used one, have you? I mean, seriously used one. Because I've been amazed at how dead-on accurate the focus is. Even on the first generation 5D, it was pretty good. But with the Mk III, the hit rate is excellent. You just have to know what you're doing to get the most out of it. And it's quite sharp wide open.
I'd be happy if Canon offered one at f/1.4, but with the f/1.2, they offer a lens that nobody else does. That's kind of Canon's thing, offering more options than the competition.
I'd have sold mine were it not a reliable AF lens. As it is, it's going nowhere. It's a key lens in my ultra-low light kit.
70-200 F2.8? About the same, although I do think imho, that Canon's IS is superior. I guess by a stop or maybe even 2.
Did you forget about that lens' infamous focus breathing, where at minimum focus distance, it has the same FOV as a 135mm lens? The Canon doesn't suffer from this. Canon is known for its teles, and this one is still king of the hill.
Wide Primes? I'm not a big user so won't offer an opinion. My 14-24 fulfils all my wide needs, so I look no further.
The Canon 24mm f/1.4 is another cornerstone in my ultra-low light kit. Like the 85, it nails focus, and looks great even wide open.
My point is that this assumption that Canon lenses are superior is uninformed at best and delusional logo fandom at worst.
It's actually complicated, and depends on where your usage is.
There's truth to this, but Canon seems to be catching up on its weaknesses much faster than Nikon is. The 16-35 (I think?) f/4 IS STM is getting superb reviews, for example. It's about time Canon addressed the ultrawide zoom weaknesses, and it seems they are.
They also offer more specialty lenses, such as the 17mm TS-E.
For me, my 14-24, 35mm Sigma Art, 50mm Sigma Art, 85 F1.8G, 70-200 F2.8VR2, 60mm 2.8G Macro covers MY needs, Canon don't make better lenses in those ranges.
The Canon 70-200 really is better.
Canon have so many old lenses, and no one talks about that. All their 50mm are ancient, their 85mm's are getting long in the tooth, and many of their L lenses are not nearly worthy of the L, when cheaper Tamrons and Sigmas match or exceed their performance.
The 50mm f/1.2 is ancient?
The 17-40 F4? I hated that lens and all it's issues for the 5 years I had it, and that was on 21 meg, let alone what it would look like on 36 meg with no OLPF.
It's the "bargain L," and it's on its way out. It was really designed for the 10D, with its sharpness high on the APS area of the image circle, but not so much in the corners. But it's lightweight and a good performer for the price. Not the best in its class, but the newer lenses are getting there.
Ditto the 24-105. Distortion, CA, soft at the edges, it has the lot, although it's IS is pretty great.
That's the most-used lens in my bag. Distortion is my only complaint about it; it's pretty heavy. But it's quite a sharp lens, and it has an extremely useful range. I could just about shoot a wedding with just this lens. And it's superb on my IR-converted Mk II, as is my 17-40. Those two make a great two-lens kit.
Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?
I imagine it's not many, but I am one of them.
All of them? No. Most of them? Yes. I think the original point was about the breadth of the available high quality lenses, as well as the performance.