Yes and none of that disagrees with my point that 'image IQ' is a subjective term that we should not fall into the trap of narrowing down to sharpness and contrast. It might seem unbelievable but the aberrations in the EF 50mm f1.2L are deliberate, they wanted it to look like that so should that be judged as a fault or just a lens you don't like because Canon's idea of rendering for that one lens isn't the same as yours. For sure other lenses have compromises for cost, features etc etc, but the EF 50 f1.2L, the EF 85 f1.2L and the EF 200 f1.8 L were no compromise lenses.
There are countless working pros who love the EF 50 f1.2L and the look it gives them, indeed as time moves on I think image character will be a bigger and bigger defining aspect between pro and non pro images, after all anybody can buy sharp lenses and good AF, but you can't post process the look an EF 50 f1.2L gives a portfolio.
Whatever drug you're taking, I want some of that.
'IQ', or image quality, has always been primarily about sharpness and contrast. It is quantifiable and objective. Aberrations often arise because of (1) technical capabilities at the time, (2) as a result of compromises made between weight, price and other salient considerations, or (3) limitations due to physics. So please don't try to confuse others by suggesting that IQ is not mostly about sharpness and contrast, or as if the presence of aberrations that lends 'character' to the resultant image means that u can place a lens that is not as sharp to be on equal footing with a sharper lens.
Image character, however, is certainly subjective. The combination of aberrations, sharpness, contrast and all of the other optical qualities will certainly change the rendering of the same image by different lenses.
I'm glad you like your EF 50 f1.2L, but no one in the right mind would say that the IQ of that lens is on par with the RF 50 f1.2L, because it certainly isn't by a mile.
