I'm done with lens reviews

Brian P Smith wrote:

Pretty much any lens made in the past decade is going to perform more than 90% of people need it to, so I don’t really worry about that kinda stuff. The only except is some of the $100 lenses from off brand manufacturers and even most of them perform admirably!

I think it depends on your expectations.

I went from a Canon M5 + 15-45 to the Fuji X-S10 + 18-55 for 3 months, sold it and just picked up a Z5 + 24-70 F4S and 14-30

I actually liked my Canon 15-45 better than my Fuji 18-55 -- I made a thread about it a few months ago. For a lens that is twice the size and almost 3x the weight, I found it to be somewhat dull and lack detail in the landscape shots I did, even with post processing, compared to my Canon. Part of it was the lens (my XC35 was way better), part was probably X-Trans drawbacks.

On the other hand, my first 2 weeks with the Z5 with the 24-70 and 14-30 kind of has blown my mind how much sharper and more detailed the images are with roughly the same resolution sensor (24 vs 26MP).

While an average print might not show a huge difference between lenses (I have plenty of prints around the house from old cameras with kit lenses), it was pretty apparent when viewing my my higher resolution MacBook Pro, even when fit to the screen and any kind of zooming or cropping just highlighted the differences more.

Personally, the biggest issue is copy-to-copy variation. It's one thing if you were spending $200 on a cheap plastic lens (like the XC 35) and some of them were duds. It's another thing if you're spending $1,000 on the 10-24 WR and it's all over on QC.