I'm done with lens reviews

This is a rant, just want you to know before you continue.

Yes, of course there's value to SOME reviews. However, even respected photographers have some head scratching results and comments in their reviews and comparisons. Add to those reviews ones from people who are newer to the art complaining about things like softness at f/22, edge softness in diagonal scenes shot wide open and sharpness with images shot handheld at 1/4" in the dark and it becomes pointless moving from review to review. 
I've been considering trading in a few lenses and replacing them with the 10-24 and the 16-55 (while I appreciate the wealth of informed information here sincerely, I'm not interested in people's opinions on these two lenses as replies. I've already read plenty of other threads. See title of post). I of course spent too much time going through reviews. They are largely mixed on the 10-24. The reviews of the 16-55 are inconsistent in their IQ comparisons relative to the 18-55 (I really don't need another anecdotal opinion). There are countless images without a shred of draw being used as illustrations of sharpness and lack of sharpness. If you take a non-compelling image, no amount of corner sharpness is going to make your photo something a viewer wants to spend some time with. I can't take another photo of a brick wall or an underexposed flower shot looking straight down. I can't watch another video of someone talking for 20 minutes only to share some uninteresting handheld photos of trash cans and bus stops to show me how great or terrible a lens is. 
The reality is, the entire Fujifilm lineup is actually pretty good. The "worst" modern Fuji lens is leaps and bounds ahead of most lenses made 30 years ago. Every lens is a tradeoff of one thing or another. If you have the ability to make a compelling photo and execute it decently from a technical standpoint, every lens Fuji makes will be just fine. I will not make (or avoid) another lens purchase because of the opinion of the Internet. I'm buying the lenses and trying them for my types of photography. I will love lenses people hate and find fault in lenses people laud. If a lens doesn't work for me, I'll return it or sell it. 
My time will be better spent learning how to see and compose photos. Learning the art of crafting an image and not squinting at my monitor comparing pixels at the edges of a photo of a cat in some YouTuber's living room. 
Buy the lens. Shoot the lens. Return or retain the lens. Keep it simple stupid (message to myself, not you). 
// end rant

imnotmarvin wrote:

I can't take another photo of a brick wall or an underexposed flower shot looking straight down. I can't watch another video of someone talking for 20 minutes only to share some uninteresting handheld photos of trash cans and bus stops to show me how great or terrible a lens is.

Yes, it is true. Most people who focus on lens reviews and equipment aren't very good photographers. My newest pet peeve are these instagram reels (videos) of people showing their camera, then videoing themselves focusing their cameras through the LCD and then showing the results...which are always bad. It seems people are not interested in just doing photography. They are interested in showing they are a photographer instead.  Beware of self proclaimed experts on social media.

The reality is, the entire Fujifilm lineup is actually pretty good.

I agree completely.

My first camera in the late 70’s was an Olympus OM-10 (with manual adapter 😁) and the Olympus Zuiko 50mm 1.8. I still have that lens, and bought an adapter for X mount so I could shoot it.

As I recall, it was lauded in the magazines of the day as being sharp and a great value. I was very pleased with the photos back then. But it’s absolutely terrible compared to anything I own today. It does have “character” and it can make some really dreamy macro shots with an extension tube and that’s how I mainly shoot it today.

But anytime I question the quality of my lenses now, I just pop on that lens and it reminds me how far we’ve come.

Congratulations, you have now made it to level 2.

To get to level 3 you need to replace every minute of posting on gear forums* with actual picture taking.

* I was at level 3 for a long while, but in a moment of weakness, dropped back to level 2...

robert1955 wrote:

Good rant.

One suggestion: buy one lens at a time, live with one for some time. Not two in parallel.

[and if you can afford it: sell as little as possible. I bought sold and bought again one of the lenses you mention]

I'm 100% sure I could live with either a 28mm or 50mm (FFE) for the rest of my life.

And since I've been shooting with the 27mm 2.8, (40mm FFE) lately, and liking it quite a bit, I may have to ammendment that to say any lens between 28 and 50...

robert1955 wrote:

Good rant.

One suggestion: buy one lens at a time, live with one for some time. Not two in parallel.

[and if you can afford it: sell as little as possible. I bought sold and bought again one of the lenses you mention]

I have one lens currently that has been purchased three times. And yes, I will only purchase one at a time. My budget and my wife will only allow for one at the moment.

GreatOceanSoftware wrote:

My first camera in the late 70’s was an Olympus OM-10 (with manual adapter 😁) and the Olympus Zuiko 50mm 1.8. I still have that lens, and bought an adapter for X mount so I could shoot it.

As I recall, it was lauded in the magazines of the day as being sharp and a great value. I was very pleased with the photos back then. But it’s absolutely terrible compared to anything I own today. It does have “character” and it can make some really dreamy macro shots with an extension tube and that’s how I mainly shoot it today.

But anytime I question the quality of my lenses now, I just pop on that lens and it reminds me how far we’ve come.

I can't tell if you love the Zuko 50/1.8 or hate it...

robert1955 wrote:

Good rant.

One suggestion: buy one lens at a time, live with one for some time. Not two in parallel.

[and if you can afford it: sell as little as possible. I bought sold and bought again one of the lenses you mention]

Same with cameras in general; I'm on my third X100F. I keep buying them, selling them, buying them back.

John Gellings wrote:

The reality is, the entire Fujifilm lineup is actually pretty good.

I agree completely.

Indeed. In fact I’d say “actually pretty good” is understating it.

I’m far more concerned with how lenses (and bodies) handle, because if something handles well I’ll want to use it despite any flaws it may or may not have, and if it doesn’t I won’t, simple as that. Which is how I’ve ended up with the ‘Crons and the 16-80. (And why I’m likely at some point to upgrade my 10-24 to the mk2 version.)

I’ve always been far more influenced to buy kit by finding some affinity with how other people have used it to good effect than I have by dry technical analysis.

Excellent post; I've been shooting nearly 50 years now.  The  lenses (and bodies) we have now are pretty much science fiction compared to my gear of 1976.

Absolutely no issues with any of today's gear.

imnotmarvin wrote:

I have one lens currently that has been purchased three times. And yes, I will only purchase one at a time. My budget and my wife will only allow for one at the moment.

I’ve always found I can buy used and sell at a profit, so the more kit I buy and only use temporarily, the more I can afford… I’ve had five or six copies of certain lenses that I only use occasionally, largely because the margin is good on them 🙂

sprouty115 wrote:

GreatOceanSoftware wrote:

My first camera in the late 70’s was an Olympus OM-10 (with manual adapter 😁) and the Olympus Zuiko 50mm 1.8. I still have that lens, and bought an adapter for X mount so I could shoot it.

As I recall, it was lauded in the magazines of the day as being sharp and a great value. I was very pleased with the photos back then. But it’s absolutely terrible compared to anything I own today. It does have “character” and it can make some really dreamy macro shots with an extension tube and that’s how I mainly shoot it today.

But anytime I question the quality of my lenses now, I just pop on that lens and it reminds me how far we’ve come.

I can't tell if you love the Zuko 50/1.8 or hate it...

Oh, I love it because it's my first lens and I'm a bit sentimental. But it sees zero action until I'm in the mood to use it this way. Every time I try to shoot it "normally," I get discouraged and swap it out.

Well said and so true.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/02/does-sharpness-matter.html

In Ansel Adams autobiography he talks about an answer to a letter from Edward Weston asking for a recommendation for a "sharp lens."  Adams comments were, "Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops.  Using a small stop only increases death...."  This was written in 1937.

The reason photographs don't please us or bland and don't communicate anything in reality has little to do with the lens and all with the vision of the person behind the camera.

Lens reviews and comparisons should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially negative ones. Did they test multiple copies, or only one? Unfortunately, sample variation is a real thing - and not just a little variation within an “acceptable” range, there are some really crappy lenses that somehow make it through quality control out there. This goes for all lenses, not just Fujis.

If you read a positive review and see some good full resolution samples, you can be pretty sure that the lens, at least, can be good. If a bunch of people are raving about a lens (the 18-55, for example), they probably aren’t lying. When there are also a bunch of people going on about crummy a lens is (also the 18-55, for example), they probably aren’t lying either, this just tells you you need to be picky and buy that particular lens (and complicated zooms, in general) with a solid return policy. I think most of the Fuji lenses are pretty solid performers if you get good copies - and most are. I’ve had very good luck with most of mine the first time,  but I’ve had some trouble with a couple - the old 23 f/1.4 and 10-24 (both versions), I finally gave up on those after multiple bad copies.

Well said. Unless someone wants a lens for a very specific reason where specific traits of the lens actually matter e.g. coma, vignette for astrophotography usage, the reviews focusing on sharpness, corner performance etc are all pointless.

I would rather watch a photowalk video showcasing street scenes and demonstrating possible scene types that can be captured with said lens e.g. from Eren Sarigul, or a video in the field e.g. from Andy Mumford instead of brick walls.

Apart from QC issues, it can be that both the lens and camera still fall within tolerance, but the combination not anymore.

robert1955 wrote:

Good rant.

One suggestion: buy one lens at a time, live with one for some time. Not two in parallel.

[and if you can afford it: sell as little as possible. I bought sold and bought again one of the lenses you mention]

I like your approach. Since purchasing the X-S10 2 years ago, I purchased the 90 F2, and it did not leave my camera for a year. Since purchasing the 16/1.4 it has not left my camera. I like immersing myself in a setup for a long period of time to really know if it will match my needs/style.

sir_c wrote:

Apart from QC issues, it can be that both the lens and camera still fall within tolerance, but the combination not anymore.

No, not really. A lens is subject to all sorts of potential mechanical misalignments etc. but a basically functional camera doesn’t have variable image quality - it typically works, or it doesn’t.