I think the problem is that I read this article...http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
And the 50 usm beat or matched the 50 L in sharpness. This is when I owned and primarily used the 50mm f/1.8 as my main lens.
Quick story about the f/1.8. I bought it for $75ish and we went to Disney World... and I proceeded to shoot every image @ f/1.8. So when I finally looked at the pictures, the AF selected a subject that wasn't my subject (I was a novice then... so not forgivable... but I learned from my mistakes). Also the lens was soft... very soft @ f/1.8... center to corners. Eventually I learned the lens sharpens up at around f/2.8 give or take.
So when I bought the 50 usm because it was the best bang for the buck... I shot at around f/2.8 and I was bored with the images. They were good... I got many a complement... but I miss shooting REALLY wide open. So the 50 usm collected dust. And I had no interest in the 50L because the sharpness was on par... and while I completely acknowledge that the bokeh and the color rendition are better... I wasn't willing to shoot at f/2.8 again.
So I harbored these rather negative emotions about the 50L for the past 3ish years... and that bias is hard to give up.
So for me... I can't respond to any of those options... I would say... because of the MEH factor of the other 50's in my life, I didn't want the 50L. I don't want to say I hate it... but for the money... I would so rather get other lenses in my bag.
Assuming $1300... I'd lean towards an 85 f/1.8 for portraiture, a 50usm for the focal length which is handy and throw on a 24-105... (which puts me over by around 50 bucks give or take).
I'm starting to ramble... I need one of yall to loan me your 50L for a week and I'll see if my opinion changes.