Re: 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
If you read my original post again, you notice I did not say to achieve the same rendering effect. I said create an image that pleases the user. Now if the first image is what you like to achieve, of course you can put some effort in PP and get something close enough (again subjective). However, I just don't find anything special about the rendering of the first image. Why would I want to replicate a uninteresting image. By the way, if the term 3D pop bothers you, this is not a photographic issue. It is true that the term is somewhat overused or misused or wrongly used by some. So are the terms such as 'rendering', 'micro contrast', 'bokeh', etc..
I do agree with you that if a lens is capable of producing the type of rendering you like and enjoy, it's a no brainer choice. I would get that lens too if it's not too expensive. I just don't see the Nokton lens is that kind of lens. Perhaps it is if I see more pictures produced by it (though I doubt it). The picture above does not come across as a good example for the argument, IMO.
Look; I am not against blurry images. Sometimes, a blurred image talks to us in a thousand ways and is more interesting that many sharp images. I am no expert by any means to create interesting blurry images. It's not my specialty. Here is one example from me:
