Where are well written negative reviews of the top m4/3 products?

We all know about the lies of "2 stops higher ISO" or "2 stops less light" and other equivalency talks.

We all know as well the reviews of the cheapest or worst m4/3 products that "reviewers" bash down because they are not the top notch (like Olympus 17mm f/2.8 vs Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2).

But do we all know the well written/made reviews in negative manner of the top notch products like Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2, Olympus 75mm f/1.8 and so on?

I have spent this evening searching negative articles about those but not really found any, instead just the bunch of people throwing other false information "There is no good glass for m4/3" without any real merits at all.

That leads easily to situation where we have two sides more like a black and white edge, about how m4/3 isn't good at all and then m4/3 is great and between as thin border line saying it is good but not for "serious work".

But like in criticism, it is only positive of the subject/topic without negativity. It is easy to bash and be negative but very difficult to be a critic as it requires to be positive without praising. And like that, I think we would need good samples how some review those top notch products to be mediocre at best, be the bases for the well written/presented situations by truly placing everything in the context.

This is honest and serious question, as in my opinion we need to be aware of the truly negative sides as well. Because at some point the praises of specific products truly can overwhelm us and new comers and that way we put some products on pedal where they don't belong.

It isn't about scientific manners (like MTF50 charts) or unscientific (DXO lists) or personal ones (some samples and talks about bokeh etc).

More like if we take two products, we photograph same subject side by side and we make large prints and we ask from random people on streets which one is different, is there difference etc.

I am little tired to hear in camera stores (and here) about talks that "product X is better" or "this will be better for you" when the final print doesn't meet the tool used for work. Like today I listened a side of sales person guidance to customer about difference of 75mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8 for a wedding photographer, hearing all the base things about equivalency, crop sensor, noise, uncertainty of Olympus going to bankrupt and finally "guiding" the photographer to Nikon and selling new set in exchange for Canon.

I wanted to disturb the sales person at that moment but years ago I learned not to care anymore so much about that. And I dislike myself about that.

But once someone starts searching information, opinions etc about products, they rarely get any critic about them, they get either praise or then bashing. We hear someone entering to discussions "Oh, but this is better, look the charts" (and we all do that, don't we?) while we really do not even understand the context at all. Like someone buys a Olympus E-M10 for family photos etc, and ends up to listen people argue shoudl they buy the 75mm f/1.8 or 42.5mm f/1.2, while all what they really would need is a Olympus 45mm f/1.8 or even just a Sigma 60mm f/2.8!

Looking 135 format users, most camera owners are total beginners, shooting in Auto or other semi modes. Many of those gets big bucks while not knowing anything really about cameras! And then are those who seek the holy grail of sharpness, contrast, rendering of out of focus areas or very thing dept of field. And that small group keeps lots of noise. Praising specific products and easily building illusions.

This question could be asked from any format, but I would like to hear has ohers found great negative reviews for m4/3 products that many like to praise?

Other example: I have tried to find good articles about Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO vs Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 by sharpness on same body (yes, sensor filter thickness etc yadda yadda) or otherwise done that would show how bad mediocre the Olympus truly is.