In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based? Rented it a few times, perhaps? Or have you just read lots of reviews? Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8?
it´s the Nikon F-mount one.. not the Canon EF.. i used to have the 7D and was here a looot.. still have the habit of coming here.. and yeah.. the 28mm is also "kinda ok", never praised the lord out of it.. but the 50L is really rather bad.. when you take the 1400€ price.. for ~800€.. it would be a whole lot better.. and i hope you are mature enough not to mock me having a "sony".. i am loyal to the price/performance ratio..
and for all the other children that like to be smart about stuff.. the sub-100mm L lenses that i mentioned.. were fast-primes (i didn´t write it because i thought it was self-explanatory, seem to have been mistaken).. the TS-E when not T-ed are over-designed.. how the heck would it look like if whey were soft? grow up, please - thank you.
edit: oh right, my background with the 50L was rather brief, when they had a "try it out" at a sport event - on the screen it looked rather nice.. but on the PC.. it was "kinda ok" for a 800€ lens.. and "CRAP" for a 1400€ lens..