An update on my experience- On my 'puter, in MS Word, I went into the symbol library and pasted a couple black outline shapes (I think a star and an arrow), formatted them to have a pretty thin black line, stretched them out to be a few inches long on the sheet and placed right next to each other, and printed it on my laser printer. Then I hung it on the wall and systematically shot each lens at -10, -5, 0, +5, and +10, comparing the results on the computer screen. This is after my upgrade to 1.11. Where before I reported I was back to 0 without further testing (up from the negative settings I was at previously), my "further testing" revealed that I was pretty consistent at +5 showing the sharpest black line on the paper. If I was testing a zoom, I'd set the lens in about the middle of its focal length range. One or two of my lenses sat at other numbers. I have not taken the time to do finer testing than the increments-of-5 that I used, maybe if I get bored... I'm not sure if this was the best protocol, but it seems to have helped.
Here's a shot from the North Shore of Lake Superior from 2 weeks ago, after the above-mentioned testing. I was probably 125 yards or so from the subject (those crashing waves on the distant rocks). K5 on tripod, Pentax 55-300 at 190mm, F/8, 1/125 sec., ISO 100. Raw capture, processed in ACR, further sharpening applied in ACR, saved as both a 16-bit tiff for printing and as a >1meg jpeg, dumbed down even more at Photobucket. Cropped pretty much only to show a 16:9 format rather than 2:3.
More images from my visit to Lake Superior here-
Steve's View of the World: Season's Greetings from St. Paul and the North Shore
My test target (it's full size), for the above lens, this was the +5 test image. All the test images were captured and viewed as raws, then viewed at 100% image size on screen in the Pentax Digital Camera Utility program, concentrating on the lines and line intersections. The outline targets proved more useful than the solid black triangle shape.