I guess a follow up question would involve macro.... Take the 50mm for instance, will the macro lense resolve better then the 1.2 or 1.4?
First, to your original primes v
zooms, as others have pointed out, "It depends." The 16-35 is a significantly better 20 f/2.8 than the prime, and it easily beats the other consumer primes in that range (28 f/2.8, etc.
). On the other hand, the TS-E 24 absolutely mops the floor with every other wide-angle lens on the market, be it prime or zoom or whatever.
And, yes. The 50mm compact macro is an awesome lens. Autofocus is pathetic, and it's not exactly fast wide open at f/2.5. But stopped down to f/8, it'll slice right through all the other 50s. If you're the type who values sharpness over speed, the 50 was made for you. If you're doing art reproduction or product photography or anything like that and you need anything close to that focal length, it's a no-brainer.
Of course, the opposite is also true. If your goal is low-light, shallow DoF portraiture, even the Plastic Fantastic will do a better job. Of course, that's something of an unfair comparison, considering that the Plastic Fantastic is itself an utterly shockingly good lens, especially considering it costs less than a decent filter. (Yes, yes -- the other 50s are better in so many ways. But, damn, the Plastic Fantastic is still amazing.)