I think the 50 1.2 is a great lens, but I don't think it's as good as Canon's other L primes, and ultimately not worth the money unless you need the things I mentioned previously. If you shoot at 50mm a lot and need great performance from f/1.2-2, I would buy it, but if it will see limited use, you're better off putting that money into another lens and getting the 1.4. Another thing to throw out is the that the 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp as both primes from f/2.8 on and is only a bit worse on CA and vignetting.
Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Now, at this time ( past 2 months), I just fell in love with my Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II , For Local Scenery shots. I not use my 50 mm Sigma past 5 months, Just 1 time ti test the Shallow DOF at F/ 1.4 only.
Yes, Sir, Thanks for your Great Comments--Yes, My Next Lens = Canon 24 -70 MM F/ 2.8 L II, And I will Give my Trustfully Old 24-70 L 2.8 to my son.
Thanks again , Sir.