Well there seem to be mixed opinions about this lens. I got one some time ago and sold it again... it was a nice lens for some special pics, but I didn't thought the price would benefit the results (f 1.2 is 36,11% more light than f1.4, only). The 85 f1.2 is magic all over it's range, but the 50mm 1.2 is rather poor. It's better than the 50mm 1.0, really... but no match to the Canonball or newer lenses from canon without "L"-designation (but sadly nearly the same pricetag).
There are drawbacks on the 85mm 1.2, f.e. you need power on the mount to manually focus the lens, no wheater sealing for the "L"-Lens, slow AF and the extending front isn't nice, eighter.
On the other Hand you pay nearly the same price for Carl Zeiss 50mm Lenses with *manual* focus but to say "you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results. I guess quite a few use the 50mm 1.2 on cropped sensors, only. So, the weak points are missing in the picture and hey, a 50mm lense is one of the simplest lens-calculations out there. I think Canon will bring a new 50mm 1.4 formula which will excell the old 50mm 1.2, easily. I think the disapearing of the old 50mm 1.4 is even anounced, yet.
It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition... but you could spend the money on a bike and get the same results but with a brighter smile on your face