Optically how good is the EF-M 18-55mm IS STM lens?

To those who own or have owned the EF-M 18-55mm IS STM lens, the following question:

In terms of image quality, how good is the EF-M 18-55mm IS STM lens?

I consider my copy to be pretty good.  I'm definitely not unhappy with it.  Here are some full resolution edited samples from a day trip I took last month.  All shot with the original M.

I voted good but would like to add the caveat of it's good only when stopped down. I'm happy with it for landscapes at f/8 or smaller (all of those landscapes in the post above are f/8 to f/11) but I wouldn't dream of trying to use it wide open. So personally I wouldn't be using it for any portraits.

...and that is:

It depends on the copy of the 18-55 you have.  I have several of the 18-55's which I got with the kits that came with the M, M2, and M3.  Two of the 18-55's are very, very good  - and one of them is downright sub-par.  Because of copy-to-copy variations (of any lens for that matter), your mileage may vary.

But more concerning - at least for me, that is - is the wonderful build quality of the 18-55, 22 MM and the 11-22.  Looking at those 3 lenses, it gave us some hope with regards to future releases.  However, all of the subsequent  EF-M lens releases have been sub-par (IMO) with regards to build quality.

I think I got a good one...it's noticeably better than my EF-M 15-45, and that one's not too shabby.  I prefer the build quality and feel of the 18-55 over the 15-45 by a long shot.

Basically, I'm pretty please with both, but will take the 18-55 for any serious work.

JD

I'd rate the lens as 'Good'. I've had mixed results so far, but some of that is due to my 'newbieness' with the EOS-M system. The 22mm is definitely sharper, but the 18-55mm is very versatile and 'lives' on my M most of the time.

Paul and Victoria

With the above pic of my son and his girlfriend, I took no particular care and just 'lucked out'. I like the quality of the skin tones and the light and shade in the restaurant on a moody day weather-wise. Sharpness could be better, but this is probably a limitation of the EOS-M and my skill level.

Bex

This was also shot a very dull day in Auckland and the subdued colours reflect this. The middle ground and distance are blurred, which may be settings or camera shake or both. Overall, I like the pic for the mix of visual elements.

You've asked about each of the EF-M lenses, are you looking to determine QC sample variations?

From reading the EF-M line-up has left me feeling blah. The body performance of the M3 is nice but using EF glass on this defeating. I almost wish I didn't buy the M3 but this system offers aspects that the G#X line doesn't.  That's the issue when attempting to downsize and still obtain performance that we've come to expect from the SLR and FF sensors.  How much of a compromise one is willing to accept weighs in.

Ben Herrmann wrote:

...and that is:

It depends on the copy of the 18-55 you have. I have several of the 18-55's which I got with the kits that came with the M, M2, and M3. Two of the 18-55's are very, very good - and one of them is downright sub-par. Because of copy-to-copy variations (of any lens for that matter), your mileage may vary.

But more concerning - at least for me, that is - is the wonderful build quality of the 18-55, 22 MM and the 11-22. Looking at those 3 lenses, it gave us some hope with regards to future releases. However, all of the subsequent EF-M lens releases have been sub-par (IMO) with regards to build quality.

Marco Nero rates the 28mm Macro very highly wrt imaging quality/ability.