It's not that bad if you stay away from high contrast areas and dont shoot wide open. plus the 100 f2 suffers much the same plight as its essentially exactly the same lens just 15mm longer. In any case I think the reason it gets recommended is two fold. First price, relatively cheap. Second it's a good fl on both crop and ff. on crop 100mm could get a little long, and on ff you're probably more likely to buy the 135L than a 100.
So what you're saying is that if I'm really considering getting a 100mm f/2, I'd be better off getting an 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L? If that's the case, I think I'll try that combo one day when I'm older and more wiser about photography. (and when my budget allows some guilt less spending haha)
My trio + 1
These are the only non L Primes I have. Don't use them much, but occasional for walk-around.
40mm 2.8 Pancake
50mm 1.8 Nifty Fifty
85mm 1.8 (Needs a nickname )
I also have one additional non-L... but it's a specialty lens
MP-E 65mm 1-5X Macro
All the rest are "L's"
What is the MP-E 65mm? Is that strictly a macro lens that is super special? haha
and for the nickname of the 85mm. How about the Sassy Glass? Seeing that DXOmarks show that the 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best canon prime lenses to have that's not an L glass? I dunno. It's 2:00am here. I need sleep. x]