+1 You beat me to it
Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)
Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.
Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.
As I have some of the mentioned lenses and have seen photos from some other allow me to comment:
Canon EF14mm f2.8L II I do have it. It has good IQ and NOT so much Coma! It does have some but it is not a buy stopper.
Canon EF16-35mm f2.8 L (Sorry it's the version I that I have and can comment upon): Bad IQ at the corners (and only in the corners)
and a lot of coma. Judging from that I believe that the version II will not be a huge upgrade (at least regarding coma)
Canon 35mm 1.4L I do have it and It does have coma.
Canon 24mm 1.4L II. This I do not have but i have NO reason to doubt the following 2 reviews:http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens24mm.htmlhttp://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html
According to the screenshots shown in these reviews it is a joke lens regarding coma.
If you add the fact that my Zeiss 21mm 2.8 ZE has very good corners and almost NO coma I believe that there is indeed room for improvement for Canon lenses.