Dan, the explicit question I got and answered was about sharpness wide open, not about overall performance. In fact, I pointed out that the ZMs improve a lot stopped down and that they have less distortion than their DSLR counterparts. Your table may be correct if we consider performance at all apertures and take distortion into account, but that is a completely different discussion.
35/2: Yes, it resolves finer detail at 40 lp/mm from center to mid frame than the 35 ZF. The level of the 35 ZF is however quite good there. The same cannot be said for the local contrast (10 lp/mm) of the 35/2 which is not particularly good. It drops below 80 mid frame which is pretty poor by any lens standard. So I consider that difference to be far more important than the difference in the 40 lp/mm region.
As for the rest, max aperture performance:
18/4 vs 18/3.4: Easy. ZM wins.
21/2.8: Easy. ZF wins.
25/2.8 - Difficult to judge. Both lenses have their advantages.
50 Planar ZM vs 50 MP - Easy, the 50 MP wins hands down at any resolution.
50 Sonnar vs 50 Planar ZF - Both designed as soft portrait lenses so they are not exactly competing for sharpness. But the claim that the ZF is sharper than the ZM stands, regardless if it is a desirable feature or not.
85 Sonnar vs 100 MP: A tie wide open. The Sonnar sports a bit better resolution center frame @ 40 lp/mm while the 100 MP has somewhat better corner performance at all resolutions.
So I think my original statement stands up to the MTF charts pretty well: The ZF lenses are as a rule sharper at max aperture.
As for considering other apertures, sure it\'s relevant but not all apertures are equal. Wide open performance is why you pay extra for a fast lens. Having good performance at f/8 is not that much of an accomplishment.
