If only owning 1 L lens, which one: 35mm 1.4 ii, 24-70 2.8 ii, or 50mm 1.2?

ikolbyi wrote:

Jura S wrote:

My sharpest lens is Sigma 50-100/1.8 which has a very annoying habit without any rational excuse to miss the focus when you really need it.

Second sharpest is 200/2.8II which is just a little bit sharper than 70-200/2.8II.

100L is way behind (wide open) and focuses much slower than all the above.

Jura - what camera body are you using? Correct me if I am wrong but the Sigma 50-100 is an EF-S mount APSC lens only. The OP is using a FF 6DM2 body requiring EF mount.

50-100 is a crop lens but it can be used on FF with some heavy vignetting at 50mm and a little lighter one at 100mm.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4 version seem to be one of Canon's best lenses ever manufactured - very highly regarded.

It's one of the best zooms.

The 100mm is an older design much like the 135mm but hold their own and loved by their owners.

100/2.8 IS L Macro is not very old design. 100/2.0 is.

I keep asking over and over, what will this lens by the OP be used for primarily? The OP keeps talking about 35mm and I keep wondering are they taking landscapes a lot?

Using 35mm for portraits is possible but your subjects will not have those dreamy images you typically see with the 85 - 135mm lengths. And as a "walk around lens", the 24-70mm zoom is the lord of all lenses in that category.

24-70/2.8 is useful for working pros.

OP has already quite decent all purpose prime. 50/1.8STM.

The answer to this question really comes down to - what will be the primary role of this lens?

Yes. That's the question OP must address to himself.