I worked at a motion picture camera rental house in LA at the launch of the viable digital cinema camera era. Throughout most of 2007, the ARRI ST/LT where the top-of-the-line cameras. They cost as much as house (well, maybe not in LA, but a house in most of the US). The most in-demand lenses were Cooke S4's and ARRI/Zeiss Ultra and Master Primes. On film, the performance of those lenses was stellar. People made art. Then, in late 2007/early 2008 the Red One launched and it only cost as much as a nice car and suddenly every DP had to reconsider what lenses they wanted. Digital, even at that early stage, was sharper than film. Master Primes became passé; Speed Panchros, Super Speeds and Super Baltars became the rage.
My point, I guess is, a part of photography-as-art is pragmatism (and also fashion) which is informed by a variety of factors (not least of which is recording media). As a person that (basically) only shoots film, I would prefer the slightly sharper version of a lens over the softer vintage correct counterpart as the media that I use inherently limits the perception of sharpness.
A small example - I have the LLL '1966' and it's basically too soft to reliably use on film. I also have the Voigtlander 50mm f/1 and its film results are fantastic. But, (in the rare instance) when I shoot on digital, I much prefer the look I get from the LLL. As for the LLL Z21, I like the look enough, but I get the feeling that shooting it with a film M might frustrate me. YMMV.
