>This brings us back to lens tests, which are supposedly more scientifically
>valid than just perception. Thru standardization, there are those arguing
>it's possible to "prove" that Leica lense are indeed better than the rest.

I think this is partly true, since the testing procedure for a reasonably
useful test is easier - though few people extend the testing procedure
sufficiently far to show very much very solidly, and if they did, the
interpretation of the large mass of detail in the result would be difficult,
and difficult to convey without returning to terms that would sound more
subjective in nature. Which is why I rely on my informal methods which
may show considerably more error, but are close enough to right enough of
the time to be useful - and a whole lot easier to do, therefore they get done.