I was told that macro lenses are always sharper compared to non macro lenses but I was also told that the EF 135 L is called the "Lord of the Red Rings" because it is so incredible sharp, so which one of them is sharper, especially at maximum aperture?
Here is the MTF. Charts from Canon Manufacture, and Most of our friends can Read/ Understand and Help us by Explain to us too.
In my Limited Knowledge of MTF. chart reading, I understand that EF 100 L is sharper than EF 135 L, Which I have both of them---Yes, May be I am total wrong--Yes, We need our friend help us.
PS, Sorry, I Type the Wrong letter , Not EFG, Should be EF 135 F/2 L in the Photo.
What those charts show is that the 100L has higher resolution in the center, but the 135L is better as you get to the edges. Both are good but in a different way, I have both and love both for different uses.
That's why a "which is sharper" answer really does not tell the whole story. There are too many critical lens parameters to evaluate, and acutance is only one of them, and might not be the most important for many photographers.
You did not ask about distortion, viginetting, chromatic abberations, bokeh, coma, AF speed, magnification, MFD, or any of the other factors that one might also need in their lens.
DXO will throw all those factors in a blender and come up with a number, which is usually misleading. Some will talk of real world photography, which means they have special powers that no one else has to compare lenses. They throw out terms that are undefined and can't be measured like color, micro contrast, 3D look, and so on.
In short, you are on your own!! Read all the reviews, and see which reviewer seems to value the same sort of lens characteristics that you do, and take his or her advice.
If you are into portraits, one set of values
Astronomy, another set
Wildlife, another set
Sports Photographers have their preferred attributes
Low light photography ...
Document and copy lenses
I'm sure there are others.