Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.
Didn't you see "Pulitzer Prize winning News Photos"
A PJs work isn't gauged by Creamy Bokeh
, but by how his work connects with the audience
. Would Nick Ut's Pulitzer winning Burning Girl
been improved by Paper-Thin-DOF
Me, I shoot advertising at f/5.6 to f/16. Sometimes I need a Tilt-and-Shift lens to INCREASE my DOF. I once shot an ad with a EF-S 10-22mm lens at f/16. So, yes I'd buy a 24mm f/2.8. YMMV
Architecture Photographers use Wide Angle Tilt-and-Shift lenses for increased DOF, because that's what their clients want/need.
What about Landscape Photographers
Yes, there are many photographers who don't give a Flying Eff about shallow DOF.