24/1.4: According to PZ and WC, the 24/1.4 and 28/1.8 are pretty close in their performance. As a 28/1.8 owner who tested it (though shortly) against my 50/1.8 and a friend's 35/1.4 I can tell you that it's corner sharpness is NOT such a big issue as seen in PZ and WC. I'd rate it as perfectly usable at 1.8 (i.e. I will not hesitate using it there) and excellent at 2.8. I also tested it against my friend's 16-35/2.8. Indistinguishable at f/2.8 and up. Is it good as tele lenses like the 85/1.8 at f/1.8? Of course not. By nature, tele lenses are far sharper than wide angles.
What I consider it's main problem is flare. If the sun is just outside the corners, it flares badly. Surprisingly, if the sun is in the frame this does not happen. In practice, I use the lens hood at all times, a bit of composition shifts and avoid this problem completely. Even more surprisingly, the 17-40/4 and the 10-22/3.5-4.5 are better in that regard.
I have this lens and consider selling it. Reason (only reason): It is far too light on my 1D and the whole complex feels unbalanced. On the far lighter 5D however, it should be perfect.
Summary: If budget is a problem, consider the 28/1.8 instead of the 24/1.4. It is an excellent value for the money. The only problem I see is the different FoV but as you are going to get another 24mm lens, this actually turns to be an advantage.
24/3.5: There are simply no other equivalent alternatives. Get it.
85/1.2: Excellent lens but if you are not absolutely sure you really need 1.2, skip it. At WC you can see a comparison between the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8. As a 85/1.8 past owner I can tell you that DoF at f/1.8 is extremely thin. It is very easy to get the focus in the wrong place. For that reason I often found myself stopping it down to f/2.8 or even f/4 just to get more DoF. If I ever be rich enough to purchase all my dream lenses, this one will not be in the list. Even f/1.8 is barely manageable.
85/1.8: I had this one for several years but recently sold it. Reason (again, the only reason): It is far too light on my 1D and the whole complex feels unbalanced. Optically it is a gem with absolutely no flaws.
100/2.8: Another optical gem. Only problem may arise is in portrait mode, where it's relatively slow AF may pose a problem. I would like to stress that when I say relatively slow AF I only refer to super fast lenses like the 85/1.8. The decision between it and the 180/3.5 needs to be on a weight/size/working distance/price factors, not optical ones. Another option may be the Tamron 180/3.5. Some tests show that it is even better than the Canon equivalent.
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html70-200/2.8 IS: Again, there are simply no other equivalent alternatives. Get it.
200/2.8: I had it. Sorry to repeat myself but this is another optical gem (most Canon primes are like that). Absolutely no flaws save from the lack of IS. If this is not a must, get it.
Additional lenses to consider:
17-40/4: As a general purpose wide lens, this one is hard to beat.
35/1.4: As a fast and natural PoV (at least as I see it) lens, this is possibly the best.
135/2: Perhaps the ultimate outdoor portrait lens.
Which set I'd advise you to start with based on your needs?
24/3.5 for architecture and as a general purpose wide lens.
35/1.4 for streets photography and low light situations.
85/1.8 for indoor portraits and low light situations.
135/2 for outdoor portraits and low light situations.
Tamron 180/3.5 for macro and tele.
Useful links:
WC =
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htmPZ =
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.htmlhttp://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/photo_index.htm
