There is a very long thread about this review at DPReview. The lens reviewer (Andy Westlake) at DPReview disagrees with lenstips handling of m4/3 reviews. There are a lot of very good points on this thread especially dealing with the FOV.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=36939963
There is a long standing war between dpreview and lenstip.
They exchange public accusations and deride methodologies.
I think both have some skeletons in their editorial drawers.
DPreview for a couple of years published all lens reviews with the wrong units; they gave resolution in lp/ph and should have in lw/ph. The resultant resolution was 2x overshot and many systems exceeded the Nyquist limit.
They had a funny note about that sending to Imatest for explanations.
When lenstip pointed that above-Nyquist is non-physical, they suddenly (a month ago) changed the units to lw/ph and removed the Nyquist lines from their "widgets". Only after some persistent inquiries they apologized and explained.
Lenstip on the other hand persisted in claims that their methodology using lp/mm from Imatest and non-sharpened raws from dcraw is best. They did not want to acknowledge that in fact they are testing system resolutions (convolutions of MTFs from lens, AA filter, sensor, electronics and algorithms) and insisted that lp/mm is the only objective figure.
But recently they changed the test bodies and suddenly 4/3 lenses gained in resolution from 40lp/mm to 75lp/mm (summilux 25/1.4 vs panny 20/1.7).
Funny, funny, funny--both.
That's what I mean do not trust fully manufacturers claims, photo reviews and insurance salesmen.
Peter/Piotr