Thanks Brian.
Here's an image I shot at f/18 on my 5D w/ a 17-40 a couple years ago:
Larger image here: http://f.cl.ly/items/1I120q0h1n1A1o432J3b/Seattle-RizalBridgeSunset.jpg
Looks plenty sharp at this size, of course, edge to edge. But in a 21"x34" print, the left side is clearly softer than the right. And this was f/18. Did my client that bought the image notice? Probably not 
But then again, we are our own harshest critic, no?
That was when I started my hunt for a better wide angle zoom... beginning w/ trying to get that lens fixed by Canon, buying another copy, buying a 16-35, etc. etc.
Visually this new post is a fairly nice image, but pretty sharp is not a quality that I would attribute to it. I think this is why we have been in disagreement the entire time, our eyes and ability to see and more importantly how we use language to describe things just aren't the same. Not better or worse, just, not the same. I would say in your new shot that the roads and buildings are approaching sharp, but not sharp, the sky 'is' close enough to sharp for a sky, and the trees and greenery are downright blurry. I would not call this image sharp, even casually.
And from your earlier post...
....The center 100% crops are tack sharp,,,
No, they aren't. They aren't even close to a definition of something I would call tack sharp, and 100% crops from 35mm DSLR's rarely are. Now, if you don't not understand the concept that it would be better to see visible pixels or ink droplets before noticing visual flaws in the image, like Chromatic abberation or low-contrast or blurred imagery that isn't purposeful, then i just don't know what to say to get on the same page with you so that we can actually communicate, as that was the central point of the entire previous post that you had difficulty in understanding. As to your other comment about not knowing 22+MP resolutions, I believe at least the center lens portion of an 18MP 7D crop would give me some idea as well as 5DIII, D800, 1DsMIII and 5DII RAW files and Phase 1 IQ80 files, so I hope that settles your question, as well, yes I know how to open the full images posted to this forum.
This really is going no-where though, so if any further response isn't likely to clear up communication difficulties or lead to something new, please stop evoking a new response from me. It's a waste of everyone's time, including mine, because at this point, this overcomplicated, under-useful conversation is more of a communications error than anything else so far as I can tell.
I'll add one last thing to try and clarify what 'sharp/sharpness' defined -means to me. Sharpness, is closely related to, if not a viable synonym for 'contrast'. In order to perceive sharpness, there must be contrast. A solid black cube printed on solid black paper will result in zero contrast. A black cube printed on white paper will result in high or if you will 100% contrast at the intersections of black and white areas of the full image. If you keep this in mind, and relate that high contrast is a requirement of sharpness, and then go back and look at your 100% crops (maybe even viewing them in black and white to remove additional confusion, you will see that areas like the pavement grit detail, and even the railings, etc., have a lack of contrast and hence a lack of visual sharpness. Like I tried to explain earlier, when viewed at 100%, these crops are un-usable and any presentation of an image should not allow for such an examination, as it would be simply better to see ink droplets or pixels before being able to discern a lack of contrast and sharpness. For this reason, things like improving exposure of your images, can lead to much sharper pictures. The railing in your Nikon RAW/Crop samples is about the closest thing to sharp the image has going for it but isn't perfect and the Canon RAW/Crop sample overall is exposed less adequately by the photographer than your Nikon sample and hence portrays less sharpness overall, among other things... You will be able to see this readily if you convert the RAW files of both images to B&W using the same settings without any other RAW editing adjustments and then view them at the same 100% viewing level. You will see you did not match exposure in the images, and hence, measuring sharpness between the two of them at that point becomes rather a fruitless effort as the contrast will never be the same and hence the impression of sharpness will vary.
This is my last post on this. I enjoyed some of this discussion and learned a bit, so thank you for that, but communication is often a very difficult thing, and as I mentioned before, this is getting way to complicated without being in person at a computer where we can easily learn what the other means and come to fruitful understandings and higher level conversations quickly. Best regards.
