I only stated that I thought something must be wrong with the Photodo methodology because they had so widely disparate ratings for a Hassy lens and a Rollei lens which are, in fact, manfactured by Zeiss and use the exact same glass.
For the record, I agree with Mr. Slater--tests, schmests––follow your chromes. I like the out-of-focus characteristics and full-aperture sharpness of my Zeiss Hassy lenses; that's why I picked Hassy over others, notably Contax and Nikon.
Lastly, for anyone who's trying to wrap his/her brain around statistics (I was raised by statisticians), while the absolute number of random s&les, that is, lenses taken off the assembly line and tested, IS important, statistical averages are based on the variation, or lack thereof, BETWEEN these s&les. If 100,000 lenses are manufactured, 1,000 are tested, and the variance between them is less than, say, 2%, then you've got statistically accurate results. If the result is, say, 15%, you've got garbage, and 1) need to retest, and, 2) need to get more consistend manufacturing. ADDITIONALLY, LENS MANUFACTURERS WHICH DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN TEST ACTUAL PRODUCTION LENSES WHICH ARE PACKAGED FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS (can you HEAR me, Canon L-series???) ARE DOING NO REAL TESTING AT ALL. Worse than that, some companies will publish MTF charts based only on their CAD (Computer Aided Design) plans for the lenses, without taking into account the manufacturing process. The difference between these MTF and reality is light-years.