I can understand where he is coming from and his advocating of a balanced view which evaluates different aspects of lens design rather than just bare resolution is certainly commendable. I don't know many knowledgeable photographers who do only care about resolution, and I think the problem is mostly restricted to certain review sites who reduce a lens to one number, and people listening to them instead of observing for themselves what counts for them.
On the other hand, my eyes fail to see -- despite considerable staring -- some of the differences he calls blatant and obvious, i.e. Flat nose vs 3d nose etc. Some he calls flat are very plastic to me, and the reason could be the perspective rather than the number of elements or coatings etc. In addition, There is so much that changes between shots, different person, different light, that claiming a difference in lens design is what causes the (at best minute) differences is somewhat daring. If anything, I would say that all lenses he portrays are remarkably similar to each other. If that is the message, i.e. don't buy the fanciest lenses because they will cost you more without getting you a tangible difference, then that would be somewhat supported by the sample images. However, I get the impression that he is trying to prove much more.
I also think that unless one is conducting a controlled experiment, one could prove almost any point and its contrary with sample images.
Maybe I'm just being overly picky and critical, please forgive me.
