Alastair, the saying was fairly common in the film days. I heard it quite a few times before I was even involved in photography (beyond using a 35mm compact) so I’m surprised you hadn’t!
I wasn’t being ironic at all; I was talking about the mid-range lineup as a group. But I’m not convinced about the 35/2 IS either. While I haven’t been able to study photos from this new 35/1.8 yet, I’d say the Nikon 35/1.8 DX lens, and possibly even the similar Sony 35/1.8, already produce nicer looking images. Canon mid-range lenses look like they use cheaper glass, and they probably do. They produce what looks very much like flat, plain photographs – they don’t capture something “extra:” neither beauty, nor dimensionality, nor interesting or compelling lighting.
But there always seem to be those who are anxious to justify Canon’s under-performance in this area.
Started out doing photography at the age of 6 using an uncle's old 1940 kodak brownie box camera. At 15 years of age, I decided to buy my very own 1975 Praktica SLR camera. I now shoot with a Nikon D850. I do unpaid TFP and commercial paid work.