FIrst of all, it is better than the kit and the kit isn't that bad. Second it depends on what you use it for. At 18 to 50 mm it's a very good lens and better than the kit in almost every Photozone comparison, plus it gives you a center sharp zoom that goes to 135mm. The fall off around the edges would be unacceptable for a DA* lens, but so would the price. Photozone says it's overpriced, and that may be true. But I still have mine after a year. It's strong enough, from 18-60 and my DA* 60-250 takes over after 60. And I can crank it out to 135 for a couple quick shots, before I change to the 60-250, so I get something in case my subject vanishes during the lens change. If anything, what this lens has taught me is how little the mtf numbers really mean. I have a number of times had comments on overs sharpening of images, on images that have had no sharpening applied.Sharp is not for every image. YOU have to know when and where to use this lens. But to say you can't use it for landscape? Really? I Just throw it on the camera and leave it on most of the time. I carry 21 ltd and a 50 1.7 for when I want a different look.
You might like this shot, more with a sharper lens, you might not.
And on this shot, the bokeh is softer and more pleasing because of the soft edges, while still letting me count individual hairs in the center. You almost certainly like it more because of the soft edges. There might be lenses out there that take the picture you want in every situation...corner to corner resolution might be necessary for some architecture shots... so if that's what you build your lens collection around, architecture shots, you probably need better corner to corner resolution.But if you wanted architecture shots, you wanted an aspherical lens with less barrel distortion anyway. If you find architecture photography somewhat cold and un-inspiring you might be happy with this lens.