>>2940904Alright, I'm just saying film, as in motion pictures, has never been super sharp, and it's a constant issue with cinematographers that cameras and lenses are so sharp these days. From all the way back in the 20's you had people putting shit on the lens to diffuse it (see Dreyer's 'Vampyr'), and it's more of a problem than ever now. Sharp images are a characteristic of video, not film, hence why people want to avoid it, it looks video-y. In focus, yeah, but not super sharp.
While it may be easy to decrease information in post, this mostly applies to light levels and color, not so much optical effects. For example look how different these 3 lenses flare, in terms of color, shape, effects on the overall picture. Each has a different personality and the problem with newer, more optically perfect lenses is that by definition a 'perfect' lens will have no personality (they're often closest to the Leicas in that comparison picture, but cleaner).
And although there have always been sharp lenses, celluloid is naturally softer as a medium, sharp lens + film works great cause you get a lot of detail while still keeping that nice look. In fact many huge projects shot on film are actually shot on new lenses (see: Spectre, The Force Awakens).
A good lens usually doesn't mean an optically perfect lens.
