I can well believe it. Of course I don't know a thing about cameras (much to my dad's chagrin), I just know he brings that up every time someone talks about the number of pixels of a digital camera. One of those examples of advertising trying to make us believe the higher the number, the better the quality. He considers it a half-truth, as the resolution appears to be irrelevant beyond a certain point.IMHO we can not use analogies with cameras - they are a recording device, not a playing device. But you are correct - the quality of the lens is a main aspect in their performance. But then we have different opinions - what is the best "lens" - one that delivers the perfect optical transmission or one lens that manipulates the transmission to get the best picture according to people who see the photos? Also, contrary to what people can imagine, getting an high-resolution picture is an extremely complex process - far from simply collecting the photo-electrons in a well! Nowadays we can not compare SOTA lenses independently of the camera.
BTW, the Nikon-versus-Canon-lens-debate is sometimes even more spirited than our DAC debates in WBF!
Greetings from Switzerland, David.