It's a tricky subject to write about. Not everyone sees (nor values) the same things in terms of lens image quality attributes, and not everyone is even capable (as horrible as that might sound) of seeing some things. I've thought about it a lot, done some blind print tests along the way, thought about it some more, read a lot of other posters thoughts, read designer interviews, looked at patents, looked at thoughts ranging from those who think unless you print super large posters you'll never see a difference to those who pixel peep at 200% and everything in between, and in the end, I think the answer is that there are a whole lotta variables that go into play that determines some of the big questions like at what print size or output do you notice differences. I've also had private conversations with a couple of other posters whom I've gotten to know over the years I've been here to bounce thoughts of, so there is a lot in my head, so to speak.
So while I do now have definite thoughts on all the 5 fifty mm options I ran through since late winter, trying to come up with a post that doesn't anger people, frustrate people, and isn't 30 pages long is difficult. And then discussing the house look requires getting technical so people can start to look beyond MTF50 scores on test charts as the only metric that matters, and that's a bloody long and possibly complex discussion in itself. Then someone will scream they want samples, which is difficult when my views are based off 8 months of shooting dozens upon dozens of scenarios (and I won't post anything that identifies my location nor any personal work involving people as a general matter). At some point the time commitment is just too much and the idea of the couch or eating a donut looks better
FWIW, the 50/1.8S is about as far away from the Nikon house look you can get while still being a Nikon lens. I have some ideas of what Nikon was trying to achieve with that lens, and also both the upsides and downsides of how it behaves because of those decisions. There does seem to be a duality of approaches within Nikon, and the best I can offer you now is simplistic terms: Some lenses are designed to be quite sharp but with more cinematic rendering, and some lenses are designed to be quite sharp but with more traditional photographic rendering with a bit more emphasis on technical rendering, but always within guide posts or guidelines or outer markers that make sure the lens is quite sharp. And a lot of it has to do, I think, with intended use case at least from the designers point of view perhaps.
I also, along with everything mentioned, need to find a way to write it that minimizes my own opinions and stays neutral within the context of suggesting why one lens might be better suited towards one photographer than another, and that just makes it even more complex, which is then more time consuming.
