Instruction: Answer the given question using the supporting document.

Input:
Question: Canon L lens vs. Prime Lens I am very curious and need your advice.  Since prime lenses are known to produce very sharp images, but lacks the versatility of zoom, would Canon L zoom lens, say 24-70mm shot at 50mm, be comparable to their non L series 50mm prime lens???  Please help!!!
Document: Just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of those that think this is a great lens. Beautiful bokeh, sharp detail, and excellent overall quality makes this a wonderful lens. The image quality is comparable to my L series 24-105 and 100-400 lenses (of course, the 50mm is prime, so this was expected).I have not used the 50mm 1.8, so can't compare it to that.
I got this product from Amazon last week. I have a Canon 30D with a good number of lenses, including several form the L series. My favorite by far is the 24-70mm 2.8L, a great sharp lens that covers a very nice range that allows to go Ultra Wide or moderate zoom in addition to the standard range.
Many of them are not very good, but they help to sell the cameras. I have nothing against zooms but I mostly use primes these days. Back when I bought the Leica, I also used Canons and I already owned several Canon EF lenses, including primes and zooms and L-series lenses in both prime and zoom formats. I did not own a 50mm. So I bought the cheap little f/1.8 II lenses. While it performed well optically, I really was not comfortable using it.
I bought this lens about six months ago and I gotta say, it creates one of the most beautiful images. I also own the 24-70mm 2.8 L and the 70-200mm 2.8 L IS, but I often find myself putting on this lens over the other two when taking portrait photographs. During the summer, I took a trip to China and this lens was on my camera about 75% of the time. It produces really sharp images and the bokeh is just amazing.
Sharpness at f/2.8 will be about the same as the 1.4 and better than the 1.2. You also are buying the versatility of the zoom range. Many people will say to buy the 24-70 f/2.8L II because they think it's as sharp as any prime in it's zoom range. But that's not making a holistic recommendation based on all the strengths and weaknesses of each of these pieces of equipment.
I like the dreamy effect at f/1.4; a special quality. From f/2.0, the images are jaw-dropping sharp edge to edge on my full frame EOS 5D. No present Canon mount zoom will match the 50mm's resolution at this focal length.Non L lenses do not come with the lens hood. I purchased a Canon OEM hood online for $25 USD. Nothing beats the versatilty and build quality of an L glass zoom.
I love this lens. This was my first uprgade from my kit lens and I chose this based on reviews and pictures I saw shot with this lens on flicker. My only complaint is that I wish I had purchased a more versitile lens like a 24-70mm first as the functionality is limited to unbelievable portraits, but that would have also cost me almost 4 times more. I would say this is a fantastic purchase.
This was the first lens (outside of the kit lens) that I purchased for use with my Canon 60D. Since then, I've added two more lenses, including the 24-70mm f2.8L, but I still find myself reaching for this 50mm regularly.I had used a friend's 50mm f1.8 prior to purchasing this lens, so I was familiar with the focal length.
So this fact alone makes a little bit suspicious about this 50mm's longevity. Hope I am wrong. Or maybe my sample is the exception.P.S. Now it's 2009. Since then I have acquired quite a few Canon lenses. I'd say the focus ring on this 50 1.4 is far from the worst on a Canon Non-L lens.
As sharp as the 24-70mm L f2.8 II. at 50mm, if not better. The 24-70mm lens is  $2200.-+. This was $300.- at 2014 Jan. new. Color (and contrast) maybe not as good as the 24-70mm f2.8 II. on landscape pictures. But still pretty good. That is the only lens from Canon, that is not an  "L"  lens in my bag. (It is very light).
Answer: The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper across all apertures; the two lenses are probably closest in sharpness at the 24-70's max of f/2.8, but by f/4 the 50mm f/1.4 is clearly in the lead.  To further cement things, the light falloff of the 50mm f/1.4 is also clearly superior to the 24-70 f/2.8L, most visibly at larger apertures.  Depending on your camera, this second item may not be a big issue; when EF-series lenses are used on APS-C sized sensors the pictures benefit from a reduced light falloff due to less of the image hitting the lens being captured by the sensor (the infamous "crop factor").  Link to 50mm f/1.4 to 24-70mm f/2.8L comparison:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Ca;mera=453&Sample;=0&FLI;=3&API;=0&LensComp;=115&CameraComp;=453&SampleComp;=0&FLIComp;=0&A;PIComp=4(copy both lines of the address into your browser)So, that's the f/1.4, what about its little sibling, the 50mm f/1.8 II?  The L glass does better against the "nifty fifty", but still loses in sharpness from f/4 through f/5.6; at f/2.8 and from f/8 to f/11 the two are about equal.  The 50mm again benefits from reduced light falloff, but not as dramatically as the f/1.4.  Link: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Ca;mera=453&Sample;=0&FLI;=3&API;=0&LensComp;=105&CameraComp;=453&SampleComp;=0&FLIComp;=0&A;PIComp=2It really shouldn't be surprising that even L-series zooms can't stand up to prime lenses under certain conditions.  Even the 50mm f/1.8 II, currently selling for barely $100, can get away with such prices because 1) the lens makes considerable sacrifices elsewhere (build quality, AF motor, lack of full-time manual focus, etc)   2) 50mm primes, in particular, were once the standard lens and so have had more research & development than just about any other fixed focal length and 3) it's vastly, vastly easier to design a fixed focal length prime lens than to make a complicated zoom, especially a fixed-aperture zoom, and a high-quality one at that, which the 24-70mm f/2.8L is.  That's why the 24-70mm f/2.8L is currently $1350, the 50mm f/1.4 goes for $350 and the f/1.8 II for only $100.  You get what you pay for.  There are other things the L-series lens likely does better, such as color saturation and vividness; I haven't seen any website providing such comparisons online, and you asked specifically about sharpness, anyway.  Think of it this way: zooms, even L-series, are by nature jacks-of-all-trades.  The really expensive ones are really, really good.  But they still have to make compromises in order to get the best image quality across the range of the zoom.  The primes, meanwhile, are single-purpose lenses, so even the cheap ones can equal the performance of a zoom set to its focal length, while the mid-price ones can easily surpass it.