>>3273166>I assume he meant "terrible Image Quality". Which is a meaningless phrase - and also weirdly (and incorrectly) capitalized.
>As in the lens is producing a shit image.You can take a photo of shit with any lens. "Shit image" has no other consistent meaning. Again, you're being fast and loose with your terms.
>It's either the effective resolution per area at various apertures and/or massive distortion that tends to do that, right?Wrong. Neither of those two jargon-filled phrases are accepted ways of describing lens performance.
I don't even have a dog in this fight. I don't own this 18mm pancake lens, nor do I have a particular need for an 18mm prime. But you aren't making a good case for your own side, and I can't resist picking apart your seemingly emotionally-charged irrational assertions.
>>3273167I've looked up the lens' characteristics on sites like Optical Limits (formerly Photozone) and Imaging Resource (formerly SLR Gear). None of what you said appears to be bad enough to constitute a reason to label this "the worst lens ever," and in a lot of cases, what you claim is patently false. The center is sharp from wide open. The corners are a little soft wide open, but sharpen up when stopped down to f/2.8. While the corners never get razor sharp, it's about the same as the 27mm pancake in this regard (which you never hear people call "the worst lens ever"), so this is probably a compromise of Fuji pancake designs inherently. It's meant as a street photography lens anyway, so unsharp corners are definitely an acceptable compromise for a lot of people. The purple fringing isn't that bad relative to many other fast lenses, according to the actual measured data.
I've Googled this before. All I can conclude is that there is some sort of mass hysteria regarding this lens, as promoted by Ken Wheeler, who is the craziest of you all. Why don't YOU Google it for yourself? Example:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-18mm-f2-r/review/ 
