Oh, you're probably referring to that "article" by a guy called Yannick something... Frankly, I'd just call that pseudo-scientific clickbait because his "conclusions" were dubious and his examples - to these eyes - were either running counter to his narrative, or cherry-picked to prove his point (which they didn't do very well) - like choosing a photo of Asian model to illustrate the point of "flat face rendering" by a modern lens (Sigma 35 AFAIR), or choosing different shooting angles to fit the "conclusions" better (in the case of the 105mm).
If that guy liked the old (and, as the testing by PZ and other sites, clearly proves, less sharp) lenses, he could've just said that. But inventing a theory and trying to pass it as fact is, to put it mildly... a monumental waste of time on the part of everyone involved, so to say.
It's that "character" argument again that we often hear from people dissing the modern designs and/or trying to validate their love for old, flawed glass (as if opinion ever needs validation... to me, that speaks of inherent inferiority complex)... but cranked up to eleven.
If that guy liked the old (and, as the testing by PZ and other sites, clearly proves, less sharp) lenses, he could've just said that. But inventing a theory and trying to pass it as fact is, to put it mildly... a monumental waste of time on the part of everyone involved, so to say.
It's that "character" argument again that we often hear from people dissing the modern designs and/or trying to validate their love for old, flawed glass (as if opinion ever needs validation... to me, that speaks of inherent inferiority complex)... but cranked up to eleven.