unless the new 50 1.4 have similar/better IQ, bokeh than the L. I dont see why should i buy this instead of the L
Exactly. It has very similar IQ. I'm not saying it's not a great lens, it's just not $1100 better than the 1.4. The 1.4 is sharper stopped down. I"m not one to bank on reviews, as I have all 3 50mm lenses, but read this review:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
I guess Bryan and I think alike? If you want to spend $1499 on a lens that doesn't perform better at f/2.8 and narrower than a lens that costs $369, it's your money. I happen to use the lens f/1.2 to 2 and it looks great, so that's why I have it. But my photos at low ISO outdoors are actually better and sharper with the 1.4.
Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8. The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.