On the 85 f/1.2L II review, Justin said the following,
"I compare the 85 1.2 to the 200 f/2 at times, that’s because similar framing can be achieved with both lenses, and with both lenses you can dramatically throw your foreground and background out of focus. Obvious advantages of the 85 are, of course, size, weight, and cost – all far less. For portraits, I do like working a bit closer to my subjects, it builds a better level of trust than 200mm sniping from afar can." ...
On the 200mm f/2L review, CR's take is,
"Without a doubt, one of my top 3 favourite lenses in the Canon lineup. It can be a bit cumbersome to use, but the results make it worth it at the end of the day." ...
So, that implies the 85 1.2 shall be another one of the top 3. Then which lens will take the remaining top spot? It's no doubt those are all great lenses. However, what's the relative comparison between the 2 lenses from experts' point of view? And I'm really curious what's the experts' top 3 lenses, or top 5, top 10?
Not sure if CRguy's got the 85 in his lineup, I just compare the two as lenses that produce similar framing. For example: take a full frame camera and an adult. Based on the minimum and maximum (infinite) focusing distances of both lenses, you can properly frame someone while still achieving a blurred out background. Some lenses would hit infinite and everything would be in focus. The quality and "depth" of blur is also in that "magical" territory.
And unlike CRguy I didn't find the 200 too cumbersome, I was surprised by how much like in weight and size it was compared to my 70-200 ƒ/2.8 L IS II, and I used it in it's place when I had it. But, yeah, it's heavy and stands out too.
I'm curious about your mention of a "top" list though, my top used lenses aren't necessarily my top favourite lenses - some are better than others for different needs. Like, I use my 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L all the time, almost every day, but it's not my favourite, just super useful - like a hammer, it's a great tool, but not as cool as a power saw