35L II > If every lens could be this good

I guess i'm only mentioning it because I would like to feel more represented in the market place by companies. Especially because In my heart, and with more importantly, with my eyes I see it as clear as the resolution gain the new one has over the old one. Of course I can see the gain in the resolution, but in addition to that, I am seeing the sacrifice in pop, depth, and micro contrast. Of course I could try to find a used original 35L if that is my preference, I know this. I'm just speaking idealistically. Ideally more people would learn to see this optical difference because it isn't as obvious tot he untrained eye as resolution, CA, vignetting, etc.

In a perfect world, I see lenses being targeted to different things and different purposes, and from what I know about lens design, there will always be tradeoff's inherent to the physical limitations of light's transmission through a given type of glass. Also, of course if newer better glass types are developed, than there doesn't have to be a tradeoff, optical coatings regardless of how good they are, will always work in conjunction to the best type of glass. It's not likely to have such minimal amount of physical matter ( eg. coating) compared to a large amount of matter( eg. type of glass) affect the way light is "bended" onto a camera's sensor.

This is why the extremely expensive lenses like my 600 f/4L II use fluorite elements. It's because fluorite has the ability to "bend" light stronger compared to other glass counterparts, thus it requires less fluorite to achieve the same amount of optical correction ( eg resoloution, lack of CA, and especially resolution wide open) Less physical material means that light gets filtered down less( because no glass or fluorite is "perfectly" clear)