Pointless? It seems to me that you missed the points made by Bjorn Rorslett, Neil Rothschild and others in that thread.
Or did I?
Bjorn posted results with a long out of production MF zoom - hardly the same as the lens under discussion.
From memory Bjorn's original report showed less vibration with an N80 than with an f5 and less vibration with an f2.8 than an f4.
This result was consistent with vibration generated by the shutter (lower on the F80) than on the F5, and lower on the f2.8 which has more front element mass to absorb the shutter induced vibration pattern being the problem, not the collar.
Bjorn modified his comments later saying the original test was on a prototype with a different collar to the production version.
Turning to Neils link - I have corresponded with Neil previously.
On the 1/5 shots there is a lack of consistency with the 2 Nikon shots - but the better of 2 equals the Kirk.
On the 1/15 there is again a lack of consistency with the Nikon shots - 1 being equal to the Kirk - and 1 just ahead of the Kirk
Despite the testing inconsistency doubt, results are even overall at 1/5 and 1/15.
At 1/50 it is too close to call.
At 1/400 at first glance the Nikon appears weak - but with 2 stops under exposure (no way to test) it is not possible to differentiate between significant under exposure and collar resolution losses - except to observe 1/400 is within the safe hand holding ability of numerous photographers.
It seems I am correct - and it was you who did not read the old thread with an open mind
Moving on, back in the late 1970's Olympus introduced the concept of sharper results with a combination of f.5 300 or f6.3 400, a slightly flexible collar, and good LLT.
Nikon are doing no more than building on a technique that Olympus introduced to a then skeptical many and to a still skeptical few.
--
Leonard Shepherd
Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.
