I just don't care much either way. For me, the starting point is a lens that is 'sharp enough' and otherwise technically competent because this falls under the banner of 'reliable and predictable.' I don't want a lens that makes everything look like it was made by a surgeon, but I don't want something that puts its own stamp on everything I do either. I want people to notice what I have done first and foremost and to ensure that I am not limited by the equipments idiosyncracies (or heavy leaning).
So yes, I pick unremarkable lenses that perform technically well and have a pleasing character which means 'not much of one but not the glaring absence of one either.'
I find it an empty experience looking at shots where the lens character is the star of every photo. To me, this comes painfully close to the notion that simply possessing expensive kit makes you a good photographer, but where cost or technology is simply replaced by exclusivity or 'being in on a secret.' It does not matter whether it is the rookie with the $8K D3X, Leicaphile with a noctilux or long-term photographer obsessing over some rare and unique optic. All suggest a reliance on the equipment for their 'effects.' While effects can be very pleasing to the eye and a lens signature interesting, it tends not to last all that long compared to compelling subject matter or a brilliantly conceived shot. I just don't think character matters much and far less so now for digital workers.
