Nice to see a review of my favorite lens by my favorite reviewer!
I'd have to say his observations match mine regarding performance at various apertures, fast autofocus, light weight, etc...
The funny thing about this lens is how people always compare this great all around portrait lens to it's very specialized 1.2 L cousin. Rather than a technical comparison, we end up discussing feelings, intagibles, magic and other vague things.
I have no doubt that under some conditions, the L version will give more contrast and more saturated colors. (I have the 135 L and that is certainly a good example of the L effect.)
The thing is... in Lightroom, I have sliders for saturation, clarity and sharpness that will give me any look I want. I can make images from the light, cheap 85 look just like the ones from the heavy, expensive 85, for all practical purposes.
So in my mind, the only advantage of the L lens is the 1.2 aperture. Would I use that if I had it? Considering that I normally use my 85 around F/2.5, I'd say not.
What we are really seeing here, in my opinion, is a victory for the Canon marketing department. Many photographers buy the 85 L as a prestige symbol and very few of them really use it to any advantage that could not be more easily and cheaply accomplished with the 85 F/1.8. Or the 135 L, if your goal is to wipe out the background and create dreamy bokeh.
I think this review is a good example of how most people think about these two lenses. They can tell the 1.8 is a nice, useful, practical lens, but they are just sure that the extreme price of the 1.2 L and the magic red ring must symbolize something very important.
Your mileage will certainly vary!