Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?

[Hobby Shooter]

Problem is that you are lumping all Canon L lenses into a certain class. Like everything, some are better than others. Some non-L's are better than older L's, etc. The comparison you showed does not suprise me with the 35L. The 35L I think is one of Canon's "weaker" L primes, whereas the 24L, 85L, 135L, and 200L are very strong. (35L and 50L I don't particularly care for). To answer your question regarding the 85L vs. 85 f/1.8 at let's say, f/2: Yes, I think the 85L II does look better overall. With the 50L and 50 f/1.4, I could never tell the difference in anything between these two lenses at f/2.

Hmm, coming from one of the guys I really respects on this forum I will now look at my 35L im a different way from now on. Seriously, about the 35L, if you disregard the last few weeks with people suddenly considering the new Sigma 35 as a gift from god the only real criticism Ive read about that lens is the lack of weather sealing. I love that lens, it's my only prime and Ive taken some magic pictures with it. On the other hand, photography is not what puts food on the table in my house.

No, haha, I don't mean the 35L is a bad lens at all. It is a great lens. Look at it compared to Canon's 35 f/2 lens. It is much better. So with regards to the 35L, it certainly fits the question of whether the L lens has a different look. It certainly does! I was just comparing to the other L primes, which is stiff competition I agree.

Phew, thanks man. Now I can put it back on and start using it again

Your first problem here is that you're listening to what I say .

Well I'll actually continue with that I'm afraid. Without a guiding light I would simply be lost. ;D