Blurring parts of totality of an image has to be intentional, not because your lens show low quality at a certain enlargement. I'm always liked abstracts as much as sharp and subject separation images, but slightly soft lenses (or too much enlargement) never made it into a piece of art. Accepting lower lens sharpness based on artistic considerations is just giving ourselves peace of mind because we can't afford the more expensive lens. One thing I came to realize is that large prints aren't forgiving because human vision is better at seeing image features at a distance than seeing smaller details close-up, so for people who can't afford an expensive camera system, I'd recommend to print small, e.g 16x24" maximum for apsc format images. There has been a lot of ink spent on arguing about sharpness and formats, the truth of the matter is that quality increases with size, as well as financial cost and decreasing ease of use, it is what it is, no matter how we turn use. Since I moved to the Pentax K1 system, I'll never go back to apsc again , I think.
---------- Post added 16-02-21 at 08:11 ----------
The thing is.. a painting isn't a photograph, and a photograph isn't a painting. I often tell myself that sharpness is overrated, but I know that I'm not being completely honest with myself