I believe you're talking about the article in Photo Techniques comparing the 16.7 megapixel Canon, the 10 MP Leica DMR and the Olympus 5 MP.
For those who didn't read it, the Cannon and Leica were almost dead heat, with the Canon being slightly better. The Olympus, at 5MP, was an also ran.

The best combination of all was the Canon mounted with Leica lenses. (does that mean the DMR was worse than it appeared, saved only by Leica lenses?). Comparison photos were posted showing a much sharper picture with the Canon used with Leica lens instead of the "L" Canon lens.

Unfortunately, the authors don't mention specific lenses used, though they are pictured with zooms. All their testing seems geared toward resolution as determining the winner.

I have no axes to grind here as I own some Canon, Leica and Zeiss lenses. The two sharpest lenses I own are a 35mm Summicron ASPH for my Leica M and a 135 f2 "L" lens for my Canon 7NE. They are breathtaking in terms of resolution and contrast.

However, neither of these lenses have ever made me say "Oh, wow!" the way three of my "softer" lenses have... the 50mm Summilux for the Leica M, the 80mm Summilux for the Leica R, and the 80mm f2 for my Contax 645.

I think digital photography evaluations over-emphasize resolution as the single most important criterion for picture quality. Anyone with a good portrait lens knows better.
Take care,