My favorite Canon lens might have been my 70-200mm f/4 IS L, but it's not. Why? Because it is not as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 non-IS L that it replaced. Not by a long shot! And it flares much more easily than the non-IS version. Which, unfortunately, I sold. So every time I use the IS lens, I get pissed off.
My most used Canon lens is the 24-105mm IS L. Why? Because of the wonderful focal length range and very effective IS, and reasonable (though not great) sharpness. But, it's not my favorite lens either, because of the absurd amounts of barrel distortion and vignetting at the wide end. When barrel distortion is bad enough that it hinders composition, it's really remarkable! Thank the gods for PTLens (and now, auto lens correction in Adobe Camera Raw), they calm my anger towards Canon for fobbing this off as an "L" lens.
Similarly, I'd like to know Canon's excuse for stupid amounts of barrel distortion on my 400mm f/5.6 L lens. It's a prime telephoto for cripe's sake. The barrel distortion should be low enough so that it is not visible!
I'd discuss the merits of my Canon 20mm f/2.8 EF lens, but the only one I can come up with, is that I wouldn't be bothered if I dropped it on the sidewalk by accident.
Actually, my favorite lens on my Canon camera (a venerable 5D), is the Sigma EX 14mm f/2.8 which I bought 12 years ago for $700. I thought about upgrading to the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L II lens, but after the experience with the 70-200m lens, this time I decided to "try before I buy". I found the Sigma has less field curvature and less distortion than the Canon, and auto-focuses more accurately. It does flare a little more than the Canon. But the extra $2000 in my bank account more than covers the cost of the piece of black cardboard I use to shield the lens. That Sigma 14mm is the oldest lens in my Canon arsenal, a tried and true "keeper".
My future lens budget is allocated to Zeiss, and quite possibly the ZF series, so they can be used on Canon, and other brands as well.