I think the answer is two things: First, regular moviegoers don't care about beauty shots of spaceships the way we do. The most extreme example of this is the refit Enterprise drydock flyby in Trek: The Motion Picture. Modelmakers and fans loved it, everyone else was bored to tears. That being said, the initial shots of the Falcon parked on the landing pad were at least as long and loving as the Mos Eisley "What a piece of junk" moment. I think once we all have the Solo blu-ray and can look at each shot frame by frame we'll see plenty of Falcon. Second, I think its part of the Star Wars style to treat space vehicles as common everyday vehicles -- no big deal. You don't linger on a shot of a Mack truck going down the road -- it's just a truck. At least that's the idea.
Partly I agree. However, due to the fact that Lando's Falcon is introduced with a lot of tension storywise and acts almost as a character, and Lando seems to be very proud on his sleak vehicle, I feel even storywise it should have had a bigger role visually. Compare it to a Transformers movie (one shouldn't do this quality-wise, I know...), but the cars are set in scene much more even when they are not transformed. The same holds for a lot of other non-scifi movies like any james Bond movie: slow, distant beauty shots are often used to highlight both the status of the main character, as well as to introduce the speed and/or the distance the character have to travel. George Lucas also used such shots, most extensively in the PT I think. And he succeded in building the universe where space travel and space ships are common, very much I think.
Also, the shots on the landing pad you mention are not compareable in impact as the Mos Eisley scene because of the poor lighting in Solo. The cleanliness of Lando's version doesn't impress because the dominant color of the ship is pure and clean white (or a slight off-white for the modeler ), but the poor lighting fools your eye and lets you think it is almost as dirty as Han's later version. Thus, the visual contrast between the early shots and the ones at the end where it is the piece of junk we expected is only half as much as they could have gone. At least, these are the feelings I had after attending two screenings. On the other side, in Mos Eisley you had the sun directly shining into the picture and there was no fog anywhere.
Another case of overuse of modern CGI...