The 55-110 is not a BAD lens, as in a lemon.
If it would be my only lens I would love it.
But when you see the other lenses like the 150mm, 105-210, 80mm 1.9, 120mm Macro, 35mm they are ALL sharper with higher contrast.
The 80mm f2.8 (kitlens) is a good lens but also slightly softer than the previous mentioned, but still sharper than my 55-110.
I use it all the time as walk arround lens just because it has a great reach for walkarround, if it was BAD I would not use it
But compared to the rest of the glass I use it's by far the last in line.
With Canon it's the opposite my 70-200 L f2.8 IS is the BEST lens (zoom) I have in the system.
PLEASE use 3D objects.
Resolution wise is not important (at least not for me).
What is important the way a system can cope with distance and OOF areas.
Some systems will loose all detail in backgrounds due to AA filtering or simple too much processing while the forgrounds will look the same.
I experienced the same with the ZD back vs my now used Leaf Aptus 22.
When you look casual you can't really see a difference with flat material.
When you shoot for example a landscape the detail from the leaf in the SMALL almost OOF areas is beter and shadow detail is better.
A lot of people only look at the bare numbers and forget that a photograph consists of MANY pieces that TOGETHER make the feel and look of a shot.
That's why I don't understand the whole 35mm is now beating MF
Resolution wise (MP's) yeah it's there.
But the way you can shoot with a MF is so different from the 35mm format (FOV, DOF etc.) that 35mm can NEVER get to the LOOK and FEEL of a MF shot.
Try photographing a model on a MF system with a 40mm/50mm lens and try to emulate this with 35mm, you will NEVER get the same look.
And visa versa.
You can NEVER emulate a 35mm look with MF.