Would you like to address the comment I made about spherical aberration without referring to bokeh or polarisation?
Polarization was merely an analogy as an effect, like bokeh, that cannot be fully replicated in post-processing. As for addressing your comment about spherical aberration without referring to bokeh, the point is that the residual spherical aberration designed into the 50L is there because the lens designers chose to emphasize bokeh quality over sharpness for the designof the lens. If you're going to slam the 50L for not being as sharp as other 50mm lenses, the reasons behind that somewhat reduced sharpness are an integral part of that discussion.
Acutally, I wonder if the Lytro camera would support the creation of S-A in software ... but that's not related to this.
Next up, let's discuss the interactions between planets…but we must avoid referring to gravity in that discussion.
If spherical aberration is so important and necessary to photographers then why do lens manufacturers go to such great lengths to eliminate it?
As has been established and accepted by many people (other than you), Canon intentionally chose to not eliminate spherical aberration from the 50L design.
Apart from Canon stating that the 50L was designed for portraits, etc, is there any actual evidence of Canon deliberately not eliminating spherical aberration?
btw, let me refer you to the wikipedia page here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration
what does it say about the top lens?
Is that the word perfect used to describe a lens without spherical aberration?
What would be really good is if someone could find the patent for the 50/1.2L and translate the Japanese to see what that says about the design, specifically if it states something like "this lens element mitigates (or reduces or ...) spherical aberration by ..." or if the patent says the reverse.