REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances
Sorry, but your just flat out wrong there. Bryan of TDP is very meticulous. He has also provided a page detailing how he does his ISO chart tests here:
According to his explanation, every shot of the test chart is sampled at least 10 times, often 15-20 times. The best shot out of all the samples is used to produce the samples he puts up on his site. Ten to twenty shots is more than enough to get a good reading on how well a lens performs.
So here are a real measurements from real MTF test, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL NOW you can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about for example fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron etc etc
Im sorry that Im erasing yet another myth
And if Jrista or Neuro want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund via e-mail, he is the lens expert expert at Hasselblad
pictures taken from the magazine with a iPhone
What "real" readings? You have provided no link, no concrete information whatsoever, that explains how they did their test. There is nothing "real" about your anecdote here...its just that, an anecdote. The sample test charts need an explanation about how they were performed...that is missing.