Over the last month, trying to decide if it is justified to buy an 85L 1.2 and/or 50L 1.2, I read a lot of opinions in various forums and Canon user groups. While there was a unilateral drooling over the 85, the opinions over the 50 were more diverse, with quite a few openly negative ones. Bear in mind two parameters:
First, that far more people have bought and used the 85 over the 50, because of its potential as a portrait lens in the still world.
Second, all the lens reviewers so far have been still photographers and no one consider video usefulness.

Because lens adoration can be very subjective is better to test drive yourself if you are going to spend that much of money.

I personally bought and use the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and I think for video the FF DoF of both lenses is already very difficult to control. (I don't have a follow focus unit yet).
If you want my personal taste the 50 is a very sweet lens and can be bought very cheap. I bought the Contax/Zeiss 18/4, 28/2, 50/1.4 85/1.4, 135/2, 180/2.8 for 1200 euros in a package deal.
For still they are all excellent for the money I paid, for video the two wide angles produce a lot of barrel distortion during movement and are not very useful. Essentially they share the same optics with the new zeiss compacts, which cost USD4000 each.

I personally bought and use the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and I think for video the FF DoF of both lenses is already very difficult to control. (I don't have a follow focus unit yet).
If you want my personal taste the 50 is a very sweet lens and can be bought very cheap. I bought the Contax/Zeiss 18/4, 28/2, 50/1.4 85/1.4, 135/2, 180/2.8 for 1200 euros in a package deal.
For still they are all excellent for the money I paid, for video the two wide angles produce a lot of barrel distortion during movement and are not very useful. Essentially they share the same optics with the new zeiss compacts, which cost USD4000 each.

But please consider (ML) firmware rack focus etc before going with manual focus only lenses.

T

The bottom line is people buy 50L for the f/1.2 bokeh. If you dont' need that, there's hardly a reason to spend the extra money for it and put up with the extra weight. The 50L is more resistant to flare but I welcome a bit flare in my images...

Better thing to do - rather than taking individual anecdotal evidence from this thread.. read the facts here: Review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm)

"The superbly built EF 50mm f/1.2L lens provided modestly sharper images with better out of focus blurring (bokeh) at f/1.4 and f/2 and was much more resistant to flare and internal reflections than the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens. This improved performance comes at the cost of increased size, weight and a greater than 5-fold higher purchase price. The f/1.2L lens did not focus faster or more accurately than the f/1.4 lens in these tests run under good lighting. Corner sharpness was lower and corner chromatic aberration was greater with the f/1.2L lens."

That test shows the crippling effect of vignetting. If you assume that the exposure at f/5.6 is correct, then even the centre of the frame at f/1.2 is nearly a stop under-exposed, the edges even more so.

That test shows the crippling effect of vignetting. If you assume that the exposure at f/5.6 is correct, then even the centre of the frame at f/1.2 is nearly a stop under-exposed, the edges even more so.

To be fair to the f/1.2, the vignette will only show up on the left and right edges.. due to the 16:9 crop in movie mode.

For stills, the f/1.2 is more worth while over the f/1.4, albeit the rule of diminishing return still applies.