>>4296528It is, wanting a "soft" lens for any subject is a meme for people high on fucking copium or deliberately wanting a visibly soft image not in focus. Usually for some meme artsy shit.
If you stop over baking images with post-process sharpening which literally highlights subtle textures and draws rings around it, "local contrast" which emphasizes any redness or gradients, and any other form of "slider" that retards who use Adobe software use all the time, you want a sharp lens.
Optical sharpness is the goal. Always has been, always will be.
Stop applying fake sharpness and you'll see how soft optics usually are, and then you'll be able to appreciate TRUE sharpness, from sharp glass, when you can simply not apply the fake shit.
There's literally no such thing as too sharp.
All instances of such a thing (and I mean ALL) where people even reference lenses being "too sharp" are always from retards looking at baked images. They're usually using Adobe software with sliders cranked up (defaults, btw) or they have sharpening enabled that they're not even aware of like with Adobe's "capture sharpening" bullshit that they might be oblivious to.
Everyone crying about stuff being too sharp is always busted for being an overbaked faggot if any research is done.
For example, anyone using dehaze/"local contrast"/curves/enhancements.
