tomdz wrote:
Looks like it's more like a "feature" rather than a bug, then... That means my body should be just fine, right?
Regarding the AF point size, what bothers me is why there are virtually no problems getting an accurate focus on an eye that usually covers much less area than the exemplar truck. Is that due to the fact that in the eye case there is less varying distance information in the frame?
I suspect this is how Canon's current AF is designed... to give the best possible AF performance at the focus distance the lens is supposed to be used. Like you, I have absolutely no problems with my fast primes and larger apertures when shooting at "normal" portrait distances (a few meters). If your body is working fine, apart from this "feature", I think it is safe to say that it falls within "specs" (meaning it functions like it should)
tomdz wrote:
Has anybody else noticed the same effect with EF 85mm 1.8 or other fast primes?
I've seen this happen with my 50/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8. And like you and Daan, I've only seen this when shooting wide open and when the subjects are well beyond 'portrait distance' (beyond 7m or so). I generally try to avoid shooting wide open with these lenses unlike my 135L which performs well at all apertures and working distances. A conspiracy theorist might conclude that Canon intentionally cripples non-L lenses in order to get consumers to fork over the extra $$ for the L's
