One would expect that shot above was from a macro lens! You bring up the issue of marked differences in resolving power and contrast at different f stops. The problem I have with deciding on lenses is that the numbers on rating sites do not necessarily correlate with their perceived quality. On Photozone\'s site, they state up front that they are unable to rate micro contrast (or total contrast for that matter) and quality of bokeh. The Zeiss 35 mm F2 actually doesn\'t have particularly high MTF values, but it has the Zeiss look. Technically the 50 mm MP has slightly lower resolution in the center compared with the lowly Nikon 50 mm F1.8 at medium f stops. However, some of the most beautiful photos I\'ve seen on FM site were those of Lofoten done with a Zeiss 50 MP with almost total absence of atmospheric haze.
Going to this site, photosig, etc. and looking at photos is not that reliable, as there are differences in composition, interesting subject matter, lighting, accuracy of focusing, post processing, color, and of course - the camera and tripod. Good photographers get great pictures from most lenses. Some of the highest rated lenses, like the Nikon 180 mm EDIF, haven\'t in my hands lived up to the hype. Buying a lens that someone else used to create a striking photo doesn\'t guarantee the least improvement in my own hands, but does lighten my pocketbook always. That is not so fun.
