Well, this discussion has moved from camera lenses to enlargers and lenses. How stable the platform is which the enlarger lens, film and easel is mounted to makes a vast difference. Unless your enlarger is attached to concrete, I doubt you are getting anywhere near the maximum out of it. Even with concrete, if you live in a city or are near a highway, you still aren't. There is far to much vibration in the ground.

But, in reality, this entire discussion of 200lpm is simply laughable. We're getting all hung up over a camera lens and body format which is typically HAND-HELD!!!! For those who anchor their cameras to concrete blocks when shooting landscapes, there is a very slight advantage, but we're really getting into fringe uses and applications. As our friend from S.A. says there is no substitute for raw film size.

Are Leica lenses better than other lenses of similar price/spec? Most of the time the answer is yes. MOST of the time, but not always. But do Leica lenses render the scenes differently? Absolutely. This is also a reason why I choose to use the system I use. It's the way the lenses draw. With Leica, a strip of negatives hanging up to dry tend to look different than those shot from other cameras. The contrasting and tonality curves are quite different.

There is life outside of resolution tests.

Back to the subject at hand. Rangefinders taking over the bag. I don't quite have that problem yet. I'm getting my primary kit (OM) built up with some serious glass and bodies. I'd get Leicas if I didn't have OM-4T and OM-3Ti bodies. Some of those Zuiko F2 lenses are also right up there with Leica glass. The only thing left is operational and I've been trying to change my shooting style to mimick that of rangefinder shooting.

Ken