Not sure why you quoted the way you did...
Your earlier post appeared to dispute the sharpness issue:
"... if you don't like the lens by all means sell it, but when I hear someone say its soft I can't help but interject....
"Least sharp" was your rebuttal about the 85 at f/2, which can equal "soft" to many observers.
The MTF on almost all sub-f/2.8 lenses back that up as that drop usually, including in FA Limited lenses, leads to a decrease in resolution, both centre and corner. This is visible softness.
That is what the OP noticed and is backed up by empirical data. Granted, the 85/s is so old it's got no MTF using modern techniques, but there are equivalents. My Rokkor 85/2 shows exactly the same pattern of "least sharp" or "soft" at its sub/f.28 aperture:
Minolta MC and MD Lens Tests
As does the Canon from Photozone:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II - Full Format Review / Test - Analysis
Please note the final comment about "relatively soft borders/corners..."
That's what you get from a larger aperture lens. Only at a very limited centre spot is it able to match the sharpness in the centre.
What is noticeable about all these lenses is they are about equally sharp by f/4. In fact, the Luminous Landscapes review of the Leica f0.95 stated unequivocally that:
"Nowhere is this better illustrated that with Leica’s lens lineup. Their 50mm f 0.95 Noctilux maybe one of the greatest optical achievements in film photography, delivering millimeters of razor sharpness even wide open. But stopped down, it is, at most, an equal to the spectacular 50mm F/1.4 ASPH, which readily overtakes its performance at ordinary working apertures."
50mm f1.1 Nokton
Generally, most lenses in a higher-end price range (and more moderately priced macros), will perform almost identically well with resolution stopped down a little, which generally buries your argument that a faster lens stopped down outperforms an f/2.8. They don't, not on the MTF's.
What you pay for with a faster lens is the DOF and bokeh (arguable...it's not always better), and perhaps some low light advantage, but not always, especially as AF struggles with shallow DOF.
So there are trade-offs, one of which being price. Certainly the high-ISO capabilities and easy EV access, plus the rise of FF in digital, makes super-fast lenses more rare because they are simply not needed for the effects they produce. That's why manufacturer consensus is to not make them Too expensive and the pros that might buy them to warranty the investment are more likely to get those effects in PP. Super-fast glass competes with Photoshop.
With regards to your photos, they have considerable softness where one would expect. Reasonably sharp around the eyes, OOF elsewhere, and lost shadow detail. Could be the lens, the light, or the PP, hard to know. We do know universally that if you lose resolution, you lose detail. The frontlit one is not as sharp as the others and is less sharp than many a stopped down lens I have used in film and digital. But then again, we know that. We know that because at f/2 the 85mm is going to have a lesser MTF value regardless of your opinion because that's what the empirical evidence says. Just because you says so using a "real world" example, doesn't mean its' true.
Finally, this thread is the mirror image and goes to the exact heart of the point I am making:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/107358-fa-31-soft.html
This whole "fast glass' issue has been full of the exact same myths since the 1970's when I first started shooting. It's the never-ending meme.
Originally posted by yeatzee .
.
.
.