Interesting test, and I must admit, I haven't got a clue. A testimonial to those Russian lenses. Recently, I shot some 6x6 event pictures with a somewhat new 80mm MC Zeiss Jena Biometar, a "Russian" (well, East German anyway) with my Kiev 60. The guy who runs the lab asked if I shot with a Hassy and said the pictures were "sharp". He even wrote "sharp" on my receipt to remind him to tell me the pics were sharp. He's the only pro lab in my area, mostly deals with pros, is older and has been doing this all his life, seen all kinds of pics from all kinds of expensive glass... I was surprised because I shot these with a flash, hand-held at 1/30 - where the Kiev's sync. This was the only time a lab tech ever commented on the pics I took, regardless of lens.
The cost of this "sharp" medium format lens? We know how expensive MF lenses are. This one stops down to 2.8 by the way. Cost me $50-ish, plus say $20 or so to ship it from the Ukraine.
1. Most of the so-called differences between lenses has more to do with marketing hype than anything. One of the most successful was "SUPER" (oooooooooh) Multi-Coated lenses. (You're just using "regular" multi-coated lenses??? Mine are Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper multi-coated... LOL!)
2. Also the halo effect from some breaktrough lens formulation from a generation earlier that's been copied 1000 times by everyone.... pay a premium for that too.
3. Most of this "this lens vs that lens" talk is bull--it.
Sorry for the rant but posts like these make me laugh. Thanks so much for posting.