Maybe I had a bad copy or I'm still upset and so my answers are coloured with my historical feelings. My pictures at @f1.2 weren't as sharp as yours, but the "problem" was more that the 50mm 1.4 outchallenged the 1.2 lense by far. Maybe there are some good ones out there, but I heard the same problem from other people.
From f2.5 on, the lense was a beast, and the colors and buildquality were outstanding... and if you need the red ring or simply the 1.2 you can't get any better from Canon at the moment. But the price and the open apertures weren't even at the niveau of thr 50mm 1.4. So it was sold. This is pixelpeeping. Of course it is, but for a $1500 lense against a $350 lense it's something which is appropriate, I think. Otherwise we all could use a 350D and a 50f1.8.
The 85mm 1.2 II was the opposite, it was a great update to the 85mm 1.8 in all ranges, except weight. The 85mm 1.2 has some other bad points (no weathersealing at any point), but that's ok for portraits in rooms.
I think everyone should use any lense he want's to, but there were people disappointed of the sharpness (topic) and I just gave my 50 cents because I had one. A red ring doesn't always justify anything. My old Zeiss f2 was sharper, and it was from 1958. At the moment I've no 50mm for the Canon anymmore, I sticked more to the fabulous 35mm range.
Here is a picture from the 85 1.2 with a part as crop. The Crop is from the jpg out of cam, no sharpening applied. This was handhold, I think there is more possible with mirrorlockup and tripod
Sorry for maybe some harsh words, I love you all