We often discuss the subject of "matching" lenses to sensors, often resulting in quite fierce debate with copious mentions of the Real World ;-)
Some time back, I bought a camera noted for taking sharp pictures. Naively, I also bought the worlds best, i.e. sharpest, 70mm true macro lens for my table-top photography. Later, I bought a 17-70mm zoom lens in case I ever ventured out into the said Real World.
Lately, I've been wondering just how cost-effective the macro lens is? The point being that, with large pixels, you can almost stick a pin-hole in front of the sensor and still take good pics, so the theory goes. After much intensive research and thought, I concluded that my zoom should be just as "good" as the relatively expensive macro lens, at least for Real World shots. And here we are:
Perhaps unfair, the macro lens being designed for close-up work, flat field, etc. but the basic point is made by the [100% crop] result above, eh?
This post might be of interest to D3/D700 drivers, whose pixels are only slightly smaller than mine . . .