Sharpest 40-45mm landscape lens

Rohith Thumati wrote:

Just looking at these charts, I wouldn't agree that the prime offers no advantage over the telezoom. The 45mm's sharpness is pretty even across the frame, while the 40-150 f/4 is weaker in the corners.

My experience is that sharper corners does not sell more of my prints or win me more awards. In fact, painters often eliminate sharpness and detail from corners and edges because they are distractions that take the eye away from the center of interest. Also, the difference in sharpness indicated by the slrgear.com charts is so slight that no one would notice without being a few inches from a huge print. The lack of uniformity across the image is so very slight, the image is at or near 1.0 everywhere.  And even if the result was soft corners, some feel there is an advantage for having soft corners in making prize winning images as expressed in this article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

I've found uniformity across the frame to be more important than pure center sharpness for my landscapes.

See above.

You're also leaving out vignetting and CA from the equation, too.

Vignetting is very easily corrected in Photoshop and is rarely noticed except in skies.  For this lens I avoid F5.6 when zoomed out due to its vignetting.  At F8 it is fine.  To draw the eye to my center of interest I often darken the corners a bit, but not so much as to be obvious.  As for CA, it is taken into account in a way by the equipment they use to measure blur units.

In use, too, I prefer the results from the Oly 45 to what I get from the 40-150. The 40-150 isn't bad by any means, but I find that the prime's rendering more pleasing.

It would be interesting to take an image with both lenses, print them at the largest size you ever have printed, hang them on a wall, and see if others (spouse and friends) can notice a difference or have a preference.