Upload & Sell: Off
The point of this test for me was personal just to see if the lens I sent to be adjusted came back equal or better than before I sent it in.
Your experience with an adjusted lens mirrors mine—in other words, I have sent in a "problem" lens and had it return in much better condition. In at least one notable case, it was literally better than when it was new.
This is really a big surprise for me. For what I heard and read, the TS-E is far more superior than any prime lens in term of IQ at the same focal length. However your test show it's not really as good as they said. Feel a little bit disappointed here, because I'm going to purchase the 24 TS-E II.
Often when we hear on photo forums that X is miles better than Y, the truth is frequently more like:
1. X is better than Y, but by a smaller increment than the verbiage might imply,
2. X is better than Y in some ways, but Y can be better than X in others,
3. Both X and Y are actually quite good,
4. Either X or Y could be a better choice, depending on what and how you shoot, and
5. It is difficult for all of us at times to step outside of the perspective of our own photography (I'm not immune) and understand that our needs are not equal to everyone's needs.
If you need what the TS lenses do, then you need the TS lenses. If you don't need that, but you might need other things more, then the TS lenses may not improve your photography and might even impair it. Or not.
On a 30x40in print the Phase images with this lens are better than...
I'd say that those regularly making very high quality 30 x 40 prints are candidates for MF digital. Up to roughly 24 x 36 (and a bit larger with 800, etc) the difference, while visible to those who look very carefully, tends to be much less significant and would likely not be significant for most people to choose to give up the flexibility and so forth of full frame DSLR shooting.