Many of the Ls are metal on the inside. A tough lightweight plastic shell can have major advantages (lighter, impact resistance, etc.)
For a great example of a sharp modern L, check out the 16-35 f/4 IS. I'm not an ultra wide photographer by nature, but that lens impresses me each time it is called-upon.
Choosing lenses, in the long run, is such a personal choice. My favorite first came to market in the early 1990s (and spent this morning with it) -- glad you have found good fits, too :).
Yeah I’ve got a few of the L lenses and am impressed by them. I think the 50mm f/1.2 is particularly known for being soft though.
35mm f/1.4 - super sharp, great quality lens.
100-400 f/3.5-5.6 II - amazing lens. Very sharp and focuses very fast. I often use this with a canon multiplier as well for wildlife shots. For the price it’s amazing.
16-35 f/4 IS - this is such a great landscape lens.
I rented the 1.2 this winter. It's kinda soft, but the rendering is beautiful. If you're going to work at f/8, the 1.8 STM or 1.4 are both as good or better.
Wide open in heavy snowfall at night, there's nothing I've experienced like it. Not quite life-changing, but it's real good.
Couldn't justify a purchase, but I may have purchased a used 1.4 a month later..... The focus-falloff, rendering, and out-of-focus elements aren't the same, but it's still wonderful in the dark and inexpensive-enough to be replaced if I kill it. Someday, the stars will align and I'll work with a 1.2 again.
My desert-island lens is a (used) 400 f/5.6. Someday I'll try the 100-400, but worry about the telescoping assembly ingesting moisture and dust in the field.
For a great example of a sharp modern L, check out the 16-35 f/4 IS. I'm not an ultra wide photographer by nature, but that lens impresses me each time it is called-upon.
Choosing lenses, in the long run, is such a personal choice. My favorite first came to market in the early 1990s (and spent this morning with it) -- glad you have found good fits, too :).