[wim]

Well at the end of the day, what is important is a happy user rather than a happy reviewer.
if the lens doesn't break records yet it has a acceptable performance and is reliable that's the most important.
IMHO the big DONTs for a lens in my book are frequent failure and unreliable focus all the remaining flaws are acceptable to a certain degree.
Canon 17-85 was a very bad lens with a lot of distortions and CA yet plenty were happy with it

The question of the matter is indeed whether an end user is happy with it.
Considering the price of the RF non-L lenses considering they are new designs and all that, I think they are still good value for money.

And as to the dark corners Klaus documented, what I find strange is that I have seen no lens reviews yet which have shown this at all, and that includes a bunch of testers who did indeed switch of in-camera correction.

I nonestly do think there is something wrong with this specimen.

As to remarks about the "24-200", which I assume is the 24-240: that actually is quite a good lens based on reviews and SOOC photographs I have seen so far. In tests it appears slightly better than the 24-105 IS STM. I actually got a specimen of the 24-240, to experience how it felt to have a more than acceptable good superzoom, as a general run-around lens.

So far no complaints for the intended purpose, although my other RF lenses are better when you look at larger magnifications . And neither can it do F/1.2 or F/2 .

Kind regards,Wim