This is why it's good to have so much choice! There's something for everyone. And I can't disagree with you in an absolute sense, because your needs and interests will be different from mine.
My perspective: I would never use a huge, heavy lens, so it doesn't matter how good it is. But that's me. Regardless, at a certain point any lens is good enough. And that is already the case with tiny vintage lenses. It's already the case with the Lumix primes. Having a technically "better" lens is pointless if you are already at the point of diminishing returns. Which we definitely are.
About the link: It's nice to see some MTF tests. But the method isn't described. In particular, what camera is being used? I guess a Canon. I would love to see MTF tests against the Panasonic primes, which are far lighter, much smaller, and cheaper.
One thing I can dispute is the comparison to the Zeiss 100mm. The description reads "from a resolution standpoint, it’s clearly superior at f/1.4 to the Zeiss at f/2". But as I read the chart, the Zeiss has better edge-to-edge performance and so is superior for it's task as a macro lens. More relevant still would be a chart stopped down, since no-one is using a macro at f/2. This is not just a difference of opinion, but a mistake.
"A difference that makes no difference is no difference." - Spock