I used to test this sort of thing for the magazines, but gave up some years ago, originally because the magazines didn't pay enough to make all the work worth while.
Since then I've realized that it doesn't matter much anyway. Are you talking about aerial resolution, or on-the-film? If the latter, which film? What exposure and development (reduced exposure and reduced development both give higher sharpness)? What contrast is the target? What are your criteria for contrast in the image? Unless these figures are determined by the same person, using the same methodology, they can vary quite considerably, so although my figures are a useful comparison from one lens to another that I've tested, and someone else's figures are a useful comparison for the lenses they have tested, his figures and mine are not likely to be very comparable.
On-the-film figures are also grievously altered by film location. You will be lucky to see 125 lp/mm consistently on film, because film location is not sufficiently accurately repeated.
Finally, as demonstrated by both Ilford and Zeiss, the quality of 'sparkle' is high contrast at relatively low frequencies, which you can't easily measure at home.
Why, after all, do you want to know? Will it make you a better photographer? This is increasingly the criterion I use before I spend time, effort and money on acquiring extra kit or technical knowledge.
Cheers,
Roger
