I understand you can’t know me or where I’m coming from. But, be owned 5-6 copies of the EF 50 L and know it extremely well. It’s not suited for closer portraits, unless you don’t want to show no ears and really get that huge nose. For looser portraits and full body it’s better suited , but still, and 85 would often be the better choice. And while it’s designed for best bokeh the price one pays for that is extreme softness, focus shift, distortion etc, and slow AF that’s not very precise.
I 100% agree with the 70-200 mk2 being poor, it’s sharp, but that’s it. I don’t like the mk1 as much as I really like the non-IS version, great pop and smooth background and sharp enough.
the thing I love about the RF 50 and 85 is precisely that they have the superb combination of wicked sharpness right into the corners that really matters for composition and the nice rendering and pop. And that is also why I love the Zeiss 100 f2. But of course MF and it suffers from pretty bad purple fringing.
So I get the 50 L, but I’m not exactly the only one who thinks it’s a pretty bad lens, especially as a 50 that’s used by everyone for everything. It’s a one trick pony.