this whole discussion about zooms versus primes and quality of glass kind of reminds me of a programme beloved in this part of the world called Top Gear, a car fanatics show. and a bit like lens and the cost they put a race driver into a standard family car around a circuit and he of course makes it outperform it's design. They then put mr average in a super expensive sports car and he of course hardly get's anywhere.
For me at the end of the day most bad photographs have way more to do with poor subject & composition, poor focus & exposure than anything to do with the lens. like the old adage " a good workman never blames his tools".
Criticising others people gear is just fundamentally rude as people invest a lot... Now I must confess I do this on a regular basis whenever I get in conversation on the street with someone who is arrogant and has €2000 or so worth of Digital SLR hanging off their neck. It kinda goes like this.
ME:"wow how much was all that?"
Answer: about €2000 in total,
ME: and what megapixel is it?
ME really- wow (holding up Minolta autocord TLR) This cost me €100 and has a resolution of around 50 or so megapixels give or take 20% variance. And the glass is legendary.
Answer: (none, usually a sullen silence)
I am asking for a full pardon from the APUG Moral Police as I only do this to exceptionally arrogant digital users....