Macro Lens Image Sharpness

I can't see any supporting links or references? I have the mass of literature from a lifetime to support what I'm saying. A proper test comparing lenses at the same time in some standardised way that satisfies critical experimental procedures.

John, maybe you missed my previous posts, so I will summarise.

I referenced The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography 4th Edition, which is a standard reference work I hope you recognise. Nowhere in that vast tome could I find anything that said macro lenses are sharper than non-macro. Of course this could be an error of omission on the part of the editors.

I secondly referenced Erwin Puts and two articles on his website The Tao of Leica. Puts is the respected author of the Leica Lens Compendium, a book that is acknowledged as the best on its topic (it now fetches many hundreds of dollars). His quotes directly support my contention.

Furthermore I can reference all of the Pentax lens tests at Photozone, which do not show macros to be across-the-board sharper than other lenses. Quite the opposite, in fact. Possibly the only macro that does come out on top would be the 50mm, but they, alas, have not tested that one. As far as I can tell, the sharpest lens they have tested is the FA43mm Limited.

And I'll add yet another reference. The respected EF Lens Work documentation (Eighth edition, 2006) Canon produced for their lens system likewise does not make any special sharpness claims for macros, stating instead that they "maintain high image quality" (p. 146) while providing "maximum photographic magnification" (p. 145). They then go on to discuss choosing a macro based on desired working distance and magnification.

Can you reduce the "mass of literature from a lifetime" to a couple of specific references that might refute what I have assembled here? Otherwise I take your claim as a perfect example of the pervasive myth I am arguing against, a myth fed by the compelling experience of viewing images of small details we never normally get to see.

Well the last comment I have on the subject will be quoting Photo Technique who stated quite clearly that the Nikon 50mm f4 Micro lens out resolved probably any other lens in existence and was probably the sharpest 35mm format lens. They were staggered by its performance.

However, that's only part of the story of lenses. I find your references slightly bizarre, but that's neither here nor there as I don't think you will change your mind.

I think the membership has enough information now to make up their own minds.

I can't see that it matters in this thread what anything other than macro lenses can produce when taking macro photographs any more that I would be interested in the comparative speed of cars just because I wanted to buy a fast speedboat

Good macro lenses can't be chosen by normal lens tests and what is considered good is what looks good. You can't produce the goods with every macro lens either even though tests on B&W test charts say a lens is sharp it might not be able to handle say red flowers or any other colours properly.

We had some very good macros in this thread and John actually joined in and gave us some info about his equipment and how he tests macro lenses using focus stacked shots.

There's a short review of the Pentax SMC A* Macro 200/4 at link.
"Results are razor sharp with best resolution I have ever seen in any 35mm SLR lens. Its not only brilliant when used as a macro lens, but even more so when used as an ordinarily telephoto lens focused at infinity. The lens also work exceptionally well with Pentax converters, giving you a 400mm macro lens with superb optical quality. There's very quality little difference between the apertures."

The Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 Macro was rated 5/5 by users at Photodo.

I agree with John Riley that enough information has been supplied for any members to make up their own minds.

I am always willing to change my mind based on evidence or a compelling argument. I have learned a lot on Pentax Forums, for example, where I am sure one can find many cases of me admitting ignorance or error.

I am also willing to admit that specific lenses are better than others and that some of the best are macro lenses. But that was not my point.

My references are "slightly bizarre"? I wonder why?