To clarify - photodo provides an adequate compromise in testing for the average person because the average person does not have the critical requisites or technique neccessary to challenge the potential of the lenses reviewed in photodo. In other words, the average person does not have the visual experience to see the actual differences in outcome, and he makes so many mistakes in the course of his work that the lenses are rarely used in an optimal manner; comparisons in practice become impractical, so, the scope of photodo's tests fosters irrelevance: just more optical bench-racing. So in that regard, photodo is at least entertaining to those looking for issues they can pursue outside of the practice of photography - seat-of-the-pants optical benchracing.

In many regards photodo "won't do". For example, they test all lenses at infinity. Most pictures are not made at infinity, and a daunting error in this regard is the outcome of their tests for macro lenses which are made for subjects specifically NOT at infinity.

Further, wide-open work is not properly evaluated by photodo's testing, nor is miminal aperture. Photodo doesn't test large format lenses, either, because they don't fall within the average consumer's concerns. But who really cares? Not the amateur. A pro might care, but the pro knows to take photdo with a grain of, ah, silver.

But the real point is not about photodo in particular, it concerns the irrelevance of the MTF metric for persons who understand and seek certain lens qualities which may not be lp/mm metric-obsessive, for example certain color qualities, the virtues of certain aberrations, and so-forth.

Finally, as we all know, for good reasons, photodo does not attempt to evaluate the manufacturing consistency of a lens source, nor the materials quality, durability. Brand Z lens might just come off as MTF equal (in the sense of the compromise) as good as Brand A, but it's internals go off kilter in short order, or just plain breaks.