What can you write about the lens, which would not have to read long ago? Our own experience perhaps. Immediately after the initial purchase, I compared the lens from the tripod out with everything I had in stock (@ 18MP). Result: can compete with the sharpest lenses, even the 1.8 / 50 Mk.1 was no better! The course aroused certain hopes. I have just returned from the US where I used three lenses: 10-22 USM, 17-55 / 2.8 and 70-200 / 4L IS. Although I am a standard zoom muffle, the 17-55 has (more than 50% share) blossomed on vacation to my main objective. - When I evaluate my pictures, then over there, strange things happened. In particular, the image stabilizer is a mind of its own seems to develop and contribute slight "lens shift" phenomena. I photograph "stills" (so quiet scenes) equal in threes as bracketing (despite RAW), memory consumption is now hardly an issue and you do it easier to select the best photo later. Although I stood still and held its breath, I can often observe that the appearance has apparently drilled into the landscape (slight rotation within a 3 Series), or know a striking shift of the image in relation to the foreground ... The -Background I usually only of tilt and shift lenses (or large format), if one adjusts the tilt angle during a Series. Hm. None of the other two lenses caused similar phenomena, despite rain freehand use. And with the much larger field of view of the ultra-wide angle to an autorotation caused by photographer would like effect with an amplifier - but there was nothing! - Overall, the focus freehand remains slightly below expectations. Either the image stabilizer works right out of the box deficient (the there! Especially in this model is the not so rare occurrence), or should I let recalibrate the customer service my camera AF again. The optics is significantly scatter light more susceptible than the competition, especially flare appear fast times in the image. Lens Hood is therefore mandatory and costs thanks to Canon's strange model policy also separately. (The 10-22 USM is visible less sensitive to stray light, despite the much larger wide angle.) But as can be: from the tripod plays the 17-55 all other standard zooms to the wall, even today, but freehand I do not get sharper shots back as with the kit lens 18-55 IS (and many fixed focal lengths!)? I would have anyway to save a lot of smuggling on vacation, not to mention the extra time ... - What really bothers me correctly: The version quality (difficult to wear plastic) would be tolerated if they had operated a small overhead when sealing against dust! I own the lens now 2 months, it was spotless when buying, and now after the trip are at least a dozen motes and lint gathered behind the front lens group, in several levels. It is an absolute new production, Ser 77xxxxxx, and I go watch out like the proverbial "Heftelmacher", much to the amusement of my fellow travelers. Always it was either carefully purified protective filter. Honestly, I have a 14 year old, much-used amateur Zoom EF USM 24-85, and which has after all these years far less dust inside while "Mr.teures APS-C" has played after a month on the vacuum cleaner. The other two lenses have these problems, even that does not specially sealed 10-22 USM is inwardly as flawless as before departure and was the second most in use, among other things, in the super-dusty Antelope Canyons. - I do not understand: As a company develops a varifocal lens to L-level, and even Leica level (I can as an old Leitzianer say), also with a hell of sharpness and brilliance, low distortion, low CA's, good open aperture performance , and puts them in the last scrap of version! Even if that was a constructive gaffe, where is the revised version? It's probably just about to impress new customers at the counter, skim purchasing power and the service workshops build in a guarantee of existence along with it. Too bad. Rather good for Canon, bad for us customers, we are the stupid again. Obviously we have learned from the many near-bankruptcies soundso Leica, nothing for eternity to build. The optics deserves 5 stars, the mechanics at most 2, which for the price is simply an impertinence of Canon. - The lazy, greedy Japanese developers ... (What was Canon times a trendsetter! Do you remember an Eye Controlled AF? At super-quiet triggering cameras? Everything fell to suffer cuts) ... should be the 10-22 USM take a model and the look (as well as for improvement scattered light protection) accommodate in a fixed length version, which would reduce the dust problem noticeably. But pray tell yet in this life!
