I used to be super obsessed with lens quality, sharpness, etc.
Now, I'm very pragmatic. I realized that I very seldom print big and when I do, what matters the most is the subject, framing, lighting, etc. sharpness is never an issue (meaning: sharpness from the lens is good enough).
In my living room I have a 90x70cm print shot with a lowly Panasonic G3 (16MP). There is quite a bit of grain (ISO 800) and sharpness is good enough (shot with the $100 Oly 40-150 f4-5.6). Guess what: the gear wasn't a limitation. The quality is really good enough, despite the size at which it was printed! At normal viewing distance, I'm sure most people wouldn't see a difference between this and the same picture taken with a Phase One 100MP. It doesn't matter to me that at 10cm distance you see some noise and not perfect sharpness.
With our computers we can see many flaws when pixel peeping, but I think that for 90% of lenses out there, their flaws don't matter. They will pretty much never be visible under normal viewing conditions. Most lenses are good enough.
Nowadays, I value compactness over ultimate IQ. I used to be bothered by the sharpness of my Fujinon 18mm f2. When I think about how I use the results from it, it actually doesn't matter. I tend to mostly print photo books these days. The largest size would be A4. Pretty much all lenses released today are objectively more than good enough. The same is true with cameras, regardless of sensor size (even 1'' is probably more than enough - except for DOF control and super high ISO).
To the point that I recently bought a used Pany GM5 which features a super crappy EVF. However, I can put it in a jacket pocket with a 12-32 mounted and carry another fast lens in the other pocket (say a 45 f1.8 or 20 f1.7). I'm finding myself using it quite a lot just out of sheer convenience.
Heavy lenses? Definitely not for me, regardless of the IQ they provide. Regular lenses are more than adequate, really.
I think most of us here are just unreasonably obsessed gear heads beyond reason ;-)
Now, I'm very pragmatic. I realized that I very seldom print big and when I do, what matters the most is the subject, framing, lighting, etc. sharpness is never an issue (meaning: sharpness from the lens is good enough).
In my living room I have a 90x70cm print shot with a lowly Panasonic G3 (16MP). There is quite a bit of grain (ISO 800) and sharpness is good enough (shot with the $100 Oly 40-150 f4-5.6). Guess what: the gear wasn't a limitation. The quality is really good enough, despite the size at which it was printed! At normal viewing distance, I'm sure most people wouldn't see a difference between this and the same picture taken with a Phase One 100MP. It doesn't matter to me that at 10cm distance you see some noise and not perfect sharpness.
With our computers we can see many flaws when pixel peeping, but I think that for 90% of lenses out there, their flaws don't matter. They will pretty much never be visible under normal viewing conditions. Most lenses are good enough.
Nowadays, I value compactness over ultimate IQ. I used to be bothered by the sharpness of my Fujinon 18mm f2. When I think about how I use the results from it, it actually doesn't matter. I tend to mostly print photo books these days. The largest size would be A4. Pretty much all lenses released today are objectively more than good enough. The same is true with cameras, regardless of sensor size (even 1'' is probably more than enough - except for DOF control and super high ISO).
To the point that I recently bought a used Pany GM5 which features a super crappy EVF. However, I can put it in a jacket pocket with a 12-32 mounted and carry another fast lens in the other pocket (say a 45 f1.8 or 20 f1.7). I'm finding myself using it quite a lot just out of sheer convenience.
Heavy lenses? Definitely not for me, regardless of the IQ they provide. Regular lenses are more than adequate, really.
I think most of us here are just unreasonably obsessed gear heads beyond reason ;-)