Do not see quite where the problem is. So ... have myriads of details ... but there will _not_ be an image, in the end, only just that: a myriad of details. Let them be sharp, or not, won´t change the outcome. Now ... what should the image be about?
Asking for patterns may give a path - patterns may be associated with action, what nature has done, what a farmer has done, what animals have done (very often they have laid the paths, where very, very much later roads have been paved). Actions, suddenly. Or during one season. Or during centuries. Then there may arrive an idea for an image. The pattern may be recognized. And .... up to this point there is hardly a technical problem. It may come the image samewise from a painter with only minimalist approach, but the image arrives just as is.
Having had a short look inside your galery at the alphabet company, just stayed at one image, which for sure is an image, that one: _IMG7959-7961, given a path between trees, there is patterns, there is activity - at least someone has been there to bring this image, along to move it to some data storage. Before a path has been formed. In between the arrangement being a wood has been accomplished, someone has cultivated this as a wood land. This is patterns resting inside this image. This is about communication.
And there is problems with this image, which are purely technically to be solved - there is flare, hindering the lens from doing its job, and this is beyond creative, obviously an error situation. The image remains though to arrive as an image, it is more than just a myriad of visually apprehensible details. But the error situation, given technically, is hindering one at spending one's patience.
So, where is the problem then? A meadow for its own is just a myriad of details. be it as sharp as you want, it won't stop from being just this. It will become an image if things arrive, probably in an abstract sense, even if concrete things are just to be apprehended as things, one level above it is patterns again. So to propose it like this: you arrive with patterns. And with a language, how to communicate those patterns.
Ok, from this point on, a lot of very different questions may arrive. I won't interfere. Just go on.
Maybe it helps., going into some detail realized from perception aspects: Human eyes themselves are by far not that sharp instruments in a technical sense as all those fine lenses are. First of all, one should never forget, seeing is an act of interacting with one's own history of having grown up with seeing - otherwise seeing would be just accumulation of noise.
Maybe the above idea of patterns may continue to come in here. In a technical sense, again, the eyes allow typically only for relatively very sharp perception, inside a small circle, in the middle of one's field of view. Per eye movement the sharp center of perception is scanning for interesting details, all the time. This correlates at the same time with what a nice bokeh of a lens is about, when playing with this human gift for perception during accumulating details.
So, a meadow is simply a working field for a farmer, and, regarded visually, just an accumulation of noise, so to speak. But going on from here, when regarding an image which contains a meadow, probably it will propose inside its communicated patterns paths, for regarding more details, if it is not just noise, but an image, and for the eye then paths are presented, where one can focus more precisely.
If this interaction works nicely, it is for sure a nice image, even if only a small part is really sharp. Or maybe nothing is sharp and the patterns are hidden elsewhere ... noone knows what may happen in a big world.
Now, if this interaction is broken, and optical sharpness is technically hindered, where it is expected while regarding the image, ok, this is not a nice image then. Btw. this is a nice point, where I find those 30+ years old M- and K-lenses quite challenging, giving sometimes a slightly different approach what can be perceived as really sharp in the image in the end.
In a technical sense a new DFA lens may coma along with sharpness in more accurate manner. But the old thing may give the balance of contrast and correct rendering of details more in a way, that it helps better for the wandering eye in its move of focussing, so to find better the paths of interest - than with the more precise and accurate tools.
But nothing better is known for sure. Just a little accumulation of ideas to that points. One should not forget, in the end those lenses from a range of some better quality are in about good like crazy. So, this is time then, better first to look for one's own approaches (plus easily to be cured minor technical problems or misunderstandings).
