In defence of the 85mm 1.2, I agree it’s slow focusing , it’s easy to miss focus . However it takes absolutely beautiful portraits, mine is incredibly sharp stepped down (when used in studio with flash - the detail on a 5DSR is shocking). I often shoot it at 1.2 , I love how it looks, very complimentary. Well worth the focusing effort. 70-200mm is the most reliable portrait lens and also is brilliant fit portraits. 200mm F2 is beautiful but heavy (I’d prefer a 135mm F2 rather than a heavier F1.8 but I could see Canon making it a differentiation point. For me for head shots the EF 300mm 2.8 II is my favourite, so sharp but complimentary. I’ve a big collection of Canon lens and I’d rate it as the best, great for sport, wildlife and portraits.Me too. Out of 15 EF lenses, the only one left is the 135/2.0. I love it. It can blur a background even when subject is full-body in a landscape frame, which that background is far less magnified and thus more recognizable than the 200/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8). Meanwhile, the 85/1.2 spec-wise should also be able to do that, but it was one of the worst lenses in the EF catalog, with huge light fall-off into the corners, poor OOF highlight circles into the corners, very slow AF, heavy and ackward, and hard to avoid touching the rear element when mounting and unmounting. And not great sharpness either. All that said, I'd switch in a second to an RF were the RF demonstrably better.