Sharp enough if you haven't used any post processing to pimp the pics, which I doubt because I noticed most of the people who shoot digital use a lot of stuff to enhance their pics and then show them in various forums to "prove" that for instance a pretty mediocre Leica lens, the Summarit f1.5 that is a low resolution low contrast old glass can produce razor sharp pics wide open.
If I really have to judge the performance of a lens I look at the negatives or at unadulterated scans from positives.re
For instance, here there two pics of the M200 f4, not the sharpest M lens in my kit:
Ok overcast, some haze, pollution, but you see at f8 is not as sharp as a K50 mm f1.4...fair enough, I think that even for architecture it's an interesting pic enough...and you can use the 2 huns also to make interesting shots with its limitations:
A lot of people like this one for instance, despite of the less than ideal lightning and the less than perfect sharpness at f4.