Keep in mind while the RF version is smaller in the bag (tho same size @200mm), it zooms slower and is more challenging to accurately zoom compared to the EF version. If you are shooting sports or fast action might make a difference in favor of the EF. Like most things there was a tradeoff with the change in the RF 70-200.. As long as the RF 70-200 commands nearly $1,000 over the EF version, I'm not tempted. For the remaining 1%, I have plenty of EF lenses that work just fine with adapters and I'm not seeing much that makes me say I have to have the RF version of an EF lens I seldom use.
That's the thing, the DS version *IS* getting the super corrected lens just to "smooth filter" over it. So anyone who got that lens is one of those folks. You are right it is only targeting the bokeh, but the reason they had to offer that in the first place is because they overcorrected the spherical abberation in the non-DS so it would look cleaner and sharper at the expense of less creamy bokeh. Since they didn't want to release an 85 1.2 with worse bokeh than the previous version, they offered the DS "add on" as an IMO inferior compromise - it wouldnt be cost effective to try to market a version with true better bokeh like the previous 85 1.2 at the same time as the new one as optical design would be different. If Canon had left in more SA like the prior 85 1.2 design there would be no need for the DS version - and the lens would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper.For the record... I like the 85 non-DS over the DS. I commented about the DS because it sounded like you implied a general smoothing effect, when it's really more smoothing of the bokeh.
However this is all opinion in what people prefer. If you don't like the new lenses, that's great... however, I do.
But it sounded like you were implying that people are getting these lenses just to smooth filter over them. So now I'm curious... how many here with the RF L's are actually doing that? (Not counting artsy effects that they would put over a picture from any lens).
When you say "this is what people prefer," first of all it's not like they have a choice if they have an RF camera and want a native 50 1.2 / 85 1.2 lens. Second, that is basically the point of this thread, that IMO this new trend to pursue hyper corrected sharpness is artistically misguided, especially when it compels people to further modify the optical path because the image looks too sterile, and bokeh too neutral or nervous.