It is this with Leica R lenses - you don't judge them by the usual criteria, esp. my favourite ugly one of 'sharpest'. In the sense of producing 'very attractive images', how many doubt the Leica lenses in general do so? Some are also remarkable *optically* most would agree, 280/4, 90AA and a few more besides.
Interesting question I think...the main aim of my photography is to use lenses that, in concert with modern sensors, colour processing and software get this job of making appealing images done...it's not some scale of measure IMO, far from it in fact.
I am pretty surprised most people feel otherwise and head off in indecent pursuit of 'sharpness'.
zhangyue, I can point you to the MTF and give you a reasoned analysis if need be. I am right in what I say, but we must acknowledge that many lenses have the appearance of greater what you might call 'sharpness' - but the optical bench does not lie! I am on the look out for a 35/2 but by no means would I care for central sharpness as the yardstick of its worth, but good to hear you like that one too.
What is all this OT alphabet soup model Nikon talk doing here now ;-)