>>4370054The way you've asked your question is stupid.
As a generalisation, newer lenses are better in all ways, even on film, and yes, to the extent that it's visible.
At the same time, lots of simple older lenses, even approaching 70-80 years old, will produce flawless results when used with care and in consideration of their limitations.
To your particular example though, of the EF 50/1.4 vs older 50/1.4's; no because that lense is a budget design which actually pre-dates digital cameras anyway and was not class leading when it launched.
Even the EF 50/1.2L is worse than the equivalent FD 50L because they took away the floating element to facilitate the AF.
But then you take an actually modern lense, like a Sigma Art, or the later stabilised L teles, or the Zeiss Milvii and you really can see a difference.
The main thing to keep in mind is design date, rather than manufacture date.
Pic related is a simple example; it's a Tamron 150-600 G1. Even in a snapshit on absolutely fucked old film, you can see the difference a modern lense makes. Contrast in the shadows against backlight, clear delineation of the focus plane, very little CA/purple fringing, and of course image stabilisation making the shot possible in the first place (handheld, 400mm, slow zoom aperture and iso 50).
