What I don't get with lens manufacturers nowadays (now that there are mirrorless cameras), is that no one wants to make AF lenses that are similar to RF glass with that rich creamy, artsy style OOF rendering. Everyone wants to future proof for 100mp FF sensors! I get so bored with critical sharpness, because even a cheap 50mm 1.8 lens is sharp. Most lenses perform adequately enough, it really comes down to the photographers. There are no modern lenses that interest me anymore, outside of maybe PF telephoto glass. Everything else has been done.
Heck I don't even like how modern movies are filmed. Everything is so sharp with HD, it's like they boosted unsharp mask by like 200! Considering the footage is digital, maybe they should tone down the details a bit in post!
There are really two main drivers of this behavior:
- A focus on data-driven results (i.e. quantifiable results vs. qualitative results)
- Catering to your modern-day "reviewers" (both YouTube and online).
Regarding quantifiable vs. qualitative, people like knowing that the money they spend gets them as good of a product as possible. What's the easiest way to judge this? NUMBERS! We see it in camera bodies with things like dynamic range, and we see it in lenses with things like MTF results. It's much easier to look at a number and say "A > B" than it is to look and judge something based on color science or focus transition. Those qualitative attributes are difficult to describe and compare, unlike quantitative results which are not.
Just because a Canon EOS R has worse dynamic range performance than an A7III or Z6, doesn't make it a bad camera. The same goes for a lens like the Nikon 58/1.4 G. On paper, it's an absolutely terrible lens. But talk to people that shoot with it regularly, and more times than not they'll tell you that there's just something "special" about it that keeps them coming back.
As for the "reviewers", as the number of camera stores continue to shrink and decline, more and more people are reliant upon reviews to help them spend their money (whether it be purchasing an item, or spending a few hundred bucks to rent it for the weekend). These reviewers default back to using quantitative assessment methods (see two paragraphs above this one), because it allows them to compare a new item to one they may've reviewed years ago.
Trust me, I get it. Nikon has some of this great "qualitative" glass in lenses like the 58/1.4 G, 85/1.4 G, etc. However, if Nikon kept making glass like that all people would hear about is how "Nikon's lenses aren't as sharp as Canon/Sony/Sigma", and people wouldn't buy it. It's an unfortunate reality in the camera market today, but it is what it is...
