Here is one with a similar theme shot with the 1.2 at 2.2 on a 5DII.
1.2 has a much softer bokeh than 1.8. Truly one of my dream lenses. Hmmm... is 1.2L really better than 1.4 open wide? If so, I'd rather save more for this lens.
That's for you to decide I suppose. Wide open the 1.2 is better in my view in that it is slightly sharper and the background blur is even softer. What more significant for my taste is that contrast is the big winner. And build quality. But there are downsides to that. You get more contrast but also more chromatic aberration. Also, the 1.4 is slightly sharper when stopped down in the 2.8 to 4 range. So it is also a question how you would use the lens for the most part. It is clearly designed in my opinion for people who like to shoot at wide apertures. Here I think it beats everything else on the market. And it is more than just usable stopped down further. So yes, for my taste and usage it was really better than my 1.4. And it's also my favorite focal length so it made sense. Is it an absolutely must have? No, absolutely not. The 1.4 is a fabulous lens as well and has served we very well over many years in it's FD version on my film cameras. Actually, if the EF 1.4 was as well build as the FD 1.4 I may have not bought the 1.2. About 50% of that decision was due to build quality.
That got me into thinking. As I'm going FF next year, 50mm seems isn't sufficient for me. Sorry ops for hijacking the thread but since somebody with more experience is giving an advice, I want further advice from him. I've been thinking of an 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2. Please note however that I already have the 100mm macro F2.8. Is the macro bokeh on FF comparable to those previous 2?