Should we take notes? lolNoah, sharpness is important to me. Or, more exactly, image quality is important to me. There've been times when I did more lens testing than serious shooting. Shame on me.
But the lens is just one element that contributes to image quality. Every time I start to get hung up on the lens as key, I recall that when I was setting up to be a 35 mm snapshotter (that's where I started) one of my chamber music partners pressed me hard to go Leica because of their lenses outstanding sharpness. I've never known whether he pressed me because he'd measured (or had access to measurements) or because he'd drunk the Leica koolaid. After I'd shot a bit I really wondered about him. He shot handheld so tremor had to have eliminated most of the image quality his lenses could deliver to film. "My best lens is a tripod" sounds odd but its true.
What I've learned from my testing is that for my purposes -- yours may be different -- there's no practical difference among lenses that are good enough. If there are any, they're hard to see and may be imaginary. The difference between good enough and not good enough can be striking. So I see the question "which lense is the best ever?" as dumb, perhaps trolling. The spelling error doesn't help, either. Good enough is good enough, end of discussion. Time and money spent chasing silver bullets are better given to improving technique.
I've also learned that although image quality is good and worth working to improve, images that aren't as sharp as possible can look very good on the desk or hung on the wall. When I was working I had several such that spent time on my desk. They're strong images, they pleased passersby, and I'm not ashamed of them. In the end, its the final print, not the gear used in producing it, that matters.
IMO, the OP was jumped on because he posed the simple question "What's an OK normal lens for 4x5 that will fit my budget?" very badly. That's a legitimate beginner's question.