>>4076140This, more complex formulas with more elements to correct shit like CA, SA, distortion and to mush the out of focus areas more nicely in some cases. They don't get any sharper than many old lenses, they just get rid of veiling caused by SA and the coatings give more contrast which make for the illusion.
Old lenses can compete if you know how to process and clean them but for fags who never have time (sports, wedding) an expensive heavy lens can save them hilarious amounts of time.
In terms of sharpness you can get that out of 4 element lenses even, many Nikkors are razor sharp (Micro 200mm, 180mm ED, 50mm 1.8 D) and the Canon fast telephotos were pretty great, many Tokina third party stuff were also known for being better than main company shit like the 90mm or the wide angle lenses, also Zeiss.
But bigger doesn't mean better, some corrections are overdone and the image looks "flat" after so much distortion correction which busts some contrast and objects between planes (corrected edges looking "off" in objects portrayed at an angle), the focus fade becomes too abrupt to be usable outside frontal orthogonal angles and too much sharpness becomes undesirable for videofags and some portrait shooters demanded by women, not to mention some fashion shooters who have to soften shit for the textiles/moire shenanigans.
There's a reason why the Sigma 18-35mm always gets paired with a softening filter and i still wonder why videofags swear by it when they have to correct for the image again on post or on site via filters, the Pentax 20-40mm blasts it aside other than in speed.
