I think Canon put their best effort forward with the 50mm f/1.2. If it wasn't enough to meet your standards, then I highly doubt that Canon could do any better at f/1.0 because it would be even more costly and have more aberrations. I don't think it makes sense to compare a normal lens (50mm) with a short telephoto (85mm) as the optical design is necessarily very different.


The 50mm f/1.2 isn't that bad. It has a focus shift problem, sure, because Canon must have decided that correcting the focus shift was not worth sacrificing some other factor.


And everyone always points out that the resolution and contrast aren't much better than the 50mm f/1.8. Here's the problem with that: for some photographers, other things, such as bokeh, are more important. Maybe the resolution and contrast are the way they are on purpose. For example, perhaps it has undercorrected spherical aberration in order to improve the bokeh greatly.


Everyone has their own preferences. Some would have preferred Canon make the 50mm f/1.2 with focus shift correction (floating elements) even if it cost another $500. Others would prefer Canon made it f/1.4 and cheaper. Others would have preferred better resolution and contrast at the cost of bokeh. Still others would have preferred an f/2 with *really* high resolution. But Canon chose the compromises based on what their market research told them would increase revenue the most.