I think you are confusing contrast for dynamic range.

There is some truth in what you say.  We can rule out Nikkor lenses since
they produce some of the sweetest images you ever want to see when mounted
on a Canon body.  This is why most serious photographers that are passionate
about obtaining the very best image quality carry six Nikkor-EOS adapters to
use with their favorite lenses.  The other issue you overlook is Nikon has
chosen to keep in-camera processing down to a minimum to give the
photographer more leeway to process the image to their standards.  Unlike
Canon, which uses very aggressive noise reduction, and other algorithms that
result in a plastic like lifeless image right out of the camera.

Fortunately, using Nikkors on an EOS body provides such a great image to the
sensor that it nullifies Canon's aggressive processing.  I guess the bottom
line is Canon's L glass is so deficient that aggressive in-camera processing
is needed to mask these flaws?  Plus, the slightly better dynamic range of
the 5D makes it a better choice for the serious Nikon shooter.  And serious
Canon shooters find that using Nikkors a joy since they are no longer
plagued with back focus and "error 99" issues.

Rita

Isn't 'microcontrast' the same thing as resolution?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=contrast+site%3Aimx.nl&btnG=Google+Search

From the first link:

"Lens performance and image quality.

What we expect from a lens to represent our solid objects is clear: the
outlines of shapes should be reproduced with a high edge contrast and
for the definition of the fine tonal gradations or differences in
brightness we need a lens that can capture even the smallest difference
of tonality in an area. As example: the very finely differentiated
shades of brightness in a face will convey the impression of plasticity.
The lens should be capable of capturing these tonal differences without
any loss. Our lens needs high contrast at the edges of shape
delineations and high fidelity for the definition of small differences
in tones. Both aspects (edge contrast and high fidelity) are measured
with the MTF graphs and not all with resolution figures."

...

"Two lenses that have the same figures of (measured) resolution, can
differ significantly in the way this resolution is represesented. The
drop from 10 to 60 lp/mm may be quite steep in one lens and very gradual
in another. Contrast over the whole spatial ramge will drop too, but
again the rate of drop is an important parameter, which will"

"CANON FD Lens Reports By Erwin Puts
...
At 1.8 and on axis both lenses have a central disk of about 6mm radius
(12mm diameter) of high resolution and low contrast. These lenses
resolve easily 125 linepairs/mm but the contrast is very low and some
flare can be seen on axis.

In the outer zones the resolution drops to about 20 lp/mm with a higher
contrast, but now we see soft edges at the black/white borders. The lvel
of astigmatism is very low, which is a major feat. There is low
vignetting and some very small pincushion distortion.

Stopping down to f/2 and f/2.8 brings a slight improvement in contrast
and it is at f/4 that the lenses start to show a punchy performance. At
f8 we have excellent performance with high contrast, and good edge
contrast (micro contrast) over the whole image field. The FD version
shows a slight improvement in the outer zones, but overall both versions
perform identical.There is no decentring: always a good sign of
outstanding workmanship in manufacturing and quality control.

As the FL version is steel and glass, where the FD version already uses
plastics, my preference would be for the FL version, but generally both
are fine performers. There is some tendency to flare and overall
contrast is low, giving the pictures a flat and dull appearance when
uses wide open. Stopped down the perfomance is very commendable."

Hmm, OK so yeah flare reduces contrast. And yes I think that can be
fixed in post processing if the resolution is there. In fact excess
contrast is more of a problem for me usually because it causes blown
highlights & blocked shadows, except in really low contrast scenes where
post processing to normal looking contrast causes posterization.

hmm...

"At 1.2 the central disc shows a clear but low contrast image where 154
lp/mm can be easily sen. In the outer zones we see the performance drop
from 77 to 50 lp/mm and even the corners have 50 lp/mm. Amazing as it
seems to be, but this lens is wide open better than the other designs at
f/4 and smaller. The snag is that micro contrast is quite low and even
the 10 lp/mm pattern has soft edges. In practical shooting you see this
as a quite soft image when looking at finer details. You see the detail
in the mage, but it lacks the sharp delineation of outlines that give
the picture transparancy and sparkle."

This is better:
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=contrast+resolution+site%3Aimx.nl&
btnG=Search>

"An optical designer has, basically, a simple job. He has to assure that
the image points, recorded by the optical system and captured in
emulsion or on a digital flash card, are as small as possible. An image
point, as is well known, has two main characteristics: it has a small
core where the light cone is focussed and a wider area around the core
where some light is spread out with diminishing intensity. An image spot
then is composed of a core and a halo around it. To keep it very simple,
we may say that the designer can influence the size of the core and the
size and intensity of the halo. A larger core without any halo will give
low resolution, but a high contrast and a small core with an extended
halo will give you very fine detail, but low contrast. In real life,
this contrast-resolution dichotomy does not exist: a small spot implies
almost always a small halo around it. It is more a question of grade,
than of principle."