Everyone had taste, good or bad taste. Visual apparence is matter of taste.
Some lenses had more resolution other less
Some lenses had more contrast other less
To me the real difference is mechanical :
No breathing during change of focus
Precise focus ring
Strong build
Parafocals for zoom
No pulvis can go inner lenses be cause is sealed
Then
If you like, you can change apparence with filter (promist/Blackmagic/low contrast and more), is matter of taste. I like that kind of apparence but most of work that I do I cannot use them, be cause are documentaries where clients ask me sharpness, contrast, some kind of apparence.
Obviously a lens of 300$ could not be the same of one of 30k, but the real question should be :
Your audience see the difference? Or do you change only for your eyes?
Ps I’m in second choise, I often do work for my eyes and my taste, if my audience think is the same, but it’s my choise, no business choise.
I’m a 50mm collectors, I bought many used vintage 50mm lenses from any brand, someone change a bit on perspective, someone change on bohen, someone change on color rendition (I have a voitlander Ultron with torio treatment, color of that lens is very different, for my eyes) but common people not see difference.
Modern Photo lenses vs video lenses (Sam yang and similar) often seems to sharp and that causes different perception of motion, but you can change with filter pre and post.
Same lenses in from of same sensor kind (gh5s,pocket4k and sonya7s2) but different color science give different renditition that mean there are too many variables and lenses are only one of that.
My 2 cent are : choose what you like and you can afford or rent.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk