+1. 50L is a great tool for an artist, not the best one for making test chart shots. It's all about who you want to be
the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..
Interesting. So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin? Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap. Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered? Naah, you're right it's crap.
You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either. My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.
This is actually a great statement and very useful for people looking for the more expensive lenses the first time.
There are always a lot of conflicting statements about every lens (every tool for that matter) on the Internet. For most good lenses, the negative comments come from people who never used it or shot charts.
I read so much bullshit about the 17-55's dust issue before just renting it, loving it and buying it.
Same with the 70-200 IS mark I.
People keep talking about back-focusing issues on the 50 1.2 and lack of sharpness on the 35 1.4 yet so many people are using them everyday with great results- that itself should be the hint.
Back to topic: anyone thinks this might be a 1.2? Although Canon can definitely just make ample optic and build improvements to justify a mark II, a 35 1.2 would be nice
Especially since I am still on crop for at least a while...