Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.
"terrible" is a relative term and depends on what you are trying to do. The 35mm f/1.4L is one of my favorites.
My copy of the 24mm II is the same, just a shade sharper and a bit better color. But you have to look real hard for it.
Yes agreed. I don't wish to labour the point any further - each to their own etc... But i reckon as has been suggested that if you're into photographing brick walls and other flat surfaces then the 35 1.4 would be a disappointment at the 1.4 end. However in my experience in using it for portraiture, I've found the 35 1.4 helps to make lush and gorgeous images and the centre is surprisingly sharp. Sharp enough for me and those who purchase my images and blow them up large.
I have the 24-70 MKI and I've never really taken a shine to it. Convenient and still very sharp but I just find the 2.8 a bit 'meat and potatoes'. Practical but not 'magical'. I'm guessing, despite the improvements, I'd still feel similarly about the Mk2 version. But I've only quite recently been bitten seriously by the prime bug.