70-200mm f4L : I was expecting pretty normal performace, but wow, i must have a freak copy because it has punch! solid contrast, great colors and tack sharp at all appertures.
85mm 1.2L : Again, I read too many reviews/comments [probably from people who actually didnt own the lens] but man, when I got it, AF was good, Sharpness wide open was excellent. Just top notch performance at all appertures. [watch out for fringing however in some point/extreme highlights]
24-70 2.8L :Great overall lens, at f4+ its very sharp, great colors/contrast too.
BrianP wrote:
- The 200 f/1.8L -- The only reason that I put this third is because I already had the 300 f/2.8L IS, so I fairly well knew what to expect.
Geesh... how could I have left this out? Probably for the same reason you only listed it third. But it really is a startlingly wonderful lens.
I was wow'ed by a number of my lenses as I bought them. My first "L" glass was the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I was wow'ed. I also wow'ed over the 24-70 when it first came. Both of these lenses are must grabs for just about any shooting I do. The other one that shocked me was the 15mm Canon fish. When I bought it, I thought it would be somewhat a toy and get little use. The truth is I use it more often than I ever thought I would and am very happy with the results. With a little care in framing it does wonders.
-- The 135 f/2L -- Every now and then I will read someone who wants IS on this. I think the odds are better that Canon would mess it up, so I hope they never touch it. The lens is about speed. It doesn't need IS.
My sentiment too. I'd sooner condone Canon slapping the IS onto the 16-35 2.8 than messing about with the 135 L (and 200 2.8 ). For the sake of future happy owners of those arguably sharpest black Canon lenses, let us hope that the enthusiasm of gizmo/gadget oriented Canon boys will be held in check by general corporate inertia.
Las year, when I got the 70-200 f/4L It blew my mind how sharp the images are! On the other hand I was disappointed with the first shots that came out of my camera after using the 100-400 L iS. Just not used to the lens yet and I was shooting under low light.
The EF 50 f/1.8 also impressed me when I got it.
The 70-200 f/4L is still my favorite lens however...here is a shot which is approx 70% crop:
I have a lot of great lenses, and many of them are amazing...but often that was what I expected (especially for the price). The only three that truly have "wowed" me are the:
-35mm f/1.4L Man, this just has such gorgeous saturated colors, it's so sharp, the bokeh is beautiful, it's great on FF camera. I borrowed one and ordered my own the same day.
-400mm f/4L DO After hearing such mixed reviews on this lens, I had to buy it. I needed a lightweight lens to carry around to replace the 100-400L I had, which was quite disappointing on a FF camera (although convenient). All I can say, is WOW. The optics are great, but that's not the wow--it's the incredibly small size and light weight of this lens. I could hike all over with this, get a lot of great wildlife shots, and never need a tripod.
-MPE 65 Man, this is just an incredible super-macro lens. Incredibly sharp, great colors, just a blast to use--but get a ring flash and a macro rail for best results.
The others I expected WOWS from that didn't disappoint were the 300 f/2.8L, the 500 f/4L, and the 600 f/4L.
. I would definitely put the 200mm f/1.8 on the top....