Me and the 50mm prime options

Is that a full frame shot? Nice in any case.

OP's pictures are normal, for me, with the 50mm f/1.4. I wouldn't call them "not real world" just because they are product type photos - though there are other lenses much better for that purpose, and the ultra-thin DOF look generally calls for a tilting lens (or a camera with movements) for better DOF control. You just have to work around it. Good light helps; stopping down definitely helps (everything but boke, alas). Getting some distance from your subject might help as well (note that OP's photos are all near MFD; the previous poster's portrait is at a more reasonable distance). I believe the 50mm's best situation is stopped down for absolute sharpness - its wide-open or nearly wide-open characteristics leave a lot to be desired - softness, especially from the image center (though not as bad as many would argue - results are still more or less usable near edges on APS-C), bad boke stopped down slightly, LoCA. It could definitely use an update.

Not all primes exhibit this bad a performance wide open: The TS-E 90mm has some fringing - just enough to declare it's there - but it very rarely shows up in use; again the high-contrast situation is the worst for it. The 135mm f/2L has essentially none that I've noticed thus far.

twoshadows wrote in post #13541696
Ya know, uOpt, I'm surprised that you're not this picky with your 85mm f/1.8. Unless you have some sort of miracle copy, there's mad PF on the lens at and near wide open. Much worse than you're showing from the ef 50mm f/1.4...

No, the 85mm 1.8 is much better with this (admittedly extreme) quick tests, I had some shots in there on the same evening.

And the 50mm didn't get good at f/3.2 either.

I wouldn't be nearly as hard on the 50mm Canon if my old Super Takumar wasn't so much better wrt the fringing. I am still unsure whether the fringing might be an indicator of a broken lens. I have to decide whether I send this one back for refund or maybe try another copy.

But I see no issues with sharpness in the center so I don't think this is just a screwed up copy.

Edwin Herdman wrote in post #13542586
Is that a full frame shot? Nice in any case.

Me? It's from a 30D, so no, not full frame. Thanks for the compliment.

They aren't "Real world" because he took them specifically to look for problems with the lens. If they were really product shots, he'd have used a tripod and stopped down for DOF and sharpness.

Of course not all primes have problems wide open. But pretty much all f1.4 lenses do. At least with soft edges and fringing on high contrast trasitions. F1.4 is a long way from f2 or f2.8 on the lenses you mentioned.

If you had spent more time looking at the pics and less at speculating it would look a lot more "real world":

This is at f/3.2. Note that this is the first and only show I cropped in this thread so far:

Yup, it's still noticeable if you're looking this closely for it, but I don't think it's a bad sample of this lens. The amount of LoCA is not the sort of thing that is going to vary from sample to sample, like a focus adjustment would, it's just something inherent in the design of the lens and glass used. IMO, if this characteristic of the 50/1.4 is unacceptable to you, you should return it and not bother with exchanging for additional copies of this lens hoping for improvement.

uOpt wrote in post #13543505
If you had spent more time looking at the pics and less at speculating it would look a lot more "real world":

This is at f/3.2. Note that this is the first and only show I cropped in this thread so far:

I don't see it.

Maybe you should give up on non-L primes?

uOpt wrote in post #13543505
If you had spent more time looking at the pics and less at speculating it would look a lot more "real world":

I don't want to spend more time looking for imperfections in pictures. I think you should spend less time, too. That's all I'm saying here.

Like others have noted, I'm really surprised that you find the LocCA on the 50mm 1.4 worse than on the 85 1.8. For me, it's the exact opposite - I love the 50, but find the fringing on the 85 really objectionable.

I decided to try a second copy and ordered a replacement. I think that the triple expansion of background blur in particular might be caused by a glass element sitting where it doesn't belong.

I will put the replacement through a more proper test and put my Takumar and my 85mm right next to it.

The good thing about all this is that I now believe that my 85mm is a great copy

It's a fast prime and a cheap one at that...You're gonna get fringing or CA or whatever you want to call it. Hell, even the best of the best have plenty of it. The 85L, 50L, 35L's 24L's all have it. I agree with Taylor....You were shooting these shots specifically looking for bad qualities.....and....I​f you go looking for problems you're gonna find them. That said, some will be better than others, so, if it's just too much for you....Give a few of them a whirl....My Sigma is the best 50 I've shot....Much better than any Canon 50mm/1.4....Not sure how many 50mm lenses I've gone through...10 ish? I either keep the L and put up with the focus shift or I keep the Sigma and give up f/1.2, I chose the Sigma, mostly because it nails focus at all apertures.