>Awesome. The only problem is, is that the OP is asking for advice based upon his current gear. If he didn't
>already have the f/1.4 and the 24-70L II, then it would be different. But since he already has those two lenses,
>he's thinking by spending a ton of money on the 50L that he's getting better gear and or IQ, only to find out
>later, he's not.
I totally second that. If he hasn't already the 50mm 1.4, I would suggest to try the 50 1.2, but with the 50mm 1.4
I think there will be no "wow"-effect with a 50mm 1.2.
I agree with you. If I would earn my money with it, the weathersealing would be a killerfeature, but I don't.
I just said that you get a less sharper lense from f1.4 to f2.5, what should be the aperture-range why I would
spend a grand more. On my 85 1.8 the update to the f1.2 was a immense difference, upon a already fantastic
85mm lense. I could pray on the 50 1.2, too, for the nice bokeh and build... but at the end. I don't think it's
worth it. The 50mm f1.0 is an even more fascinating lense everyone wants to hold in his hands... but this is
even less sharp. At the moment I don't have any 50mm lense left, because the range is too boring for me.
That's a punch in a face of classic artists, but I'm more addicted to 35mm.
I think Canon should make a 50mm 1.2 II with the specs of the 85mm 1.2 and everyony will hold still a moment,
bend down to their knees and buy it again.