From what I understand, primes are suppose to be better than zooms. And Canon L-series lenses are suppose to be better than non-L series.

So how do the following non-L primes fare compared to the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (set to f/4) at corresponding focal lengths (particularly with respect to sharpness and chromatic aberrations)?

As lenses generally get sharper stopped down a little, I’d be particularly interested if either of these primes can equal the 24-105mm f/4L, when more open. (Trying to compare two of these lenses using the MTF charts at photozone.com suggested that EF 85mm f/1.8 USM at f/1.8 pretty much equaled the 24-105mm f/4L (at f/4, 70mm), at least in sharpness, but I don't know about CA's.)

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (at f/2, f/2.8, and f/4)

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (at f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8, and f/4)

*So, in brief, is it possible that I could get equal or better resolution and chromatic aberrations using either of these prime lenses at f/2 or f/2.8 than the 24-105mm f/4L at f/4?*