12-40 vs 12-35, again...

CONTEXT : I love my 12-40 but I'm thinking of replacing my OMD by a Panasonic body and a f/2.8 zoom exchange would be a part of the move, so as to preserve a good stablization thanks to Dual IS. So I'm trying to evaluate what I would loose.

The Olympus 12-40 has undoubtly an edge on IQ but to be honest, the more it goes, the less I care about "sharpness all across the frame" or "clinical lens" or whatsoever. At f/2.8 whatever the focal length, given the pictures I make, I really don't care at all if the corners are softer : here, f2.8 is for OOF blur and/or shutter speed increase, and center sharpness is more important (to me, of course. we are all different).

Typically, tests like DXO are not in favor to the 12-35 but I'm sure I can deal with the difference. Actually flare/ghost is a much bigger issue IMO.

So, I can deal without absolute sharpness but I have to admit that what's happening at wide angle when stopped down is important nevertheless, especially when focussed at infinity. In that case, a bit of even-ness across the frame would be appreciated.

Then come reviews like http://admiringlight.com/blog/panasonic-lumix-12-35mm-f2-8-x-review/2/ for instances (but there are others) which state that when focussed at infinity, things are getting much worse. On the other hand, we have returns like http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756377 which state the exact opposite (after pointing a previous thread more critical about the 12-35).

So who's right ?

• Is the 12-35 much worse on the edges when focussed at infinity than when focussed closer ?
• Do tests like DXO reflect what one would expect when focussed at infinity ?