We are satisfied and would buy it again.

We have the objective now little more than 2 years of service and take a lot with it. We use namely in order to document interiors - regularly once or twice a week. As a camera, we have a 5D it.

The title takes the résumé already anticipated. Specifically, we can confirm that the objective good to sehrgut earned by size, weight and finish in the handling / handling.

The optical power is not entirely uncontroversial, opinions vary. The topic of focus is a major bone. For this purpose my opinion / observation: The show received between 17 and about 22 mm images sharpness drop in image objects located on the screen. This sharpness waste is acceptable at my discretion and depends on the aperture setting. In said lower focal length range but occur simultaneously significant Vignetierungen. This can be calculated away with current RAW developers though, leave our interior shots but then clear color noise (could be in outdoor anderst through out). This vignetting takes eg yoy at 20. 17 mm already apparent from, just by Gate 4 on aperture 5.6. For me, therefore, is 20mm at f 5.6 in the standard of "stop". I exceeds that limit, the recording occurs in the knowledge that it will contain technical errors. To the photos I will great barrier but this and am not "lead interred" when recording in the Papierkob goes.

Another possible cause of blur is recognized by the fact that often captured in the screen objects closer to the camera position duetlich are as objects in the center of the image and thus no longer focused focal plane.

For absolutely remarkable, I think the most extensive directory freedom. If I already can detect distortion in the viewfinder, then the objective for me is gone. For me, distortion weighs much heavier than a moderate sharpness waste (we talk far from blurring) to the screen. So here's really high praise.

And one thing we should not forget: A few years ago one would have dared so by a lens at all and then not to dream at this price.

Due to the frequent use and the associated frequent pollution of the front lens, we have now bought a Protect filter a few weeks ago. Wi simply want to avoid the resulting cleaning marks on front lens over time. The frequent pollution of the front lens certainly has to do with their size (77mm) and also with the very short lens hood. But this is simply due to the 17mm.

Why is it ever become this lens? In the past I had two out of two purchases of foreign lenses unlucky with the mechanics. And that each already within 4 weeks of purchase. That's why I always opted for the original lenses. From the fundamental price-performance ratio and the opinions which was represented in forums it was just the lens of choice. The 16-35 is much more expensive (because we would just continue to save some) and a non-L I did not want to entrust this focal length range of a so-called. Full frame camera. Actually, I do it myself with the lens selection always fairly easy: there is a matching L from Canon that I can afford and that will not verissen in the forums? Then bring it on. In this way, I was spared disappoint.

By the way, to about 2 years after the purchase of second hand sink value of L - and then to remain broadly stable. Yes according to desirability then the discount on the replacement value is 20 - 30%.

Summary:

Weak points: soiling tendency of the front lens (design), vignetting
Positives: virtually no distortion (I find remarkable), inexpensive extreme focal length for full, stable value for sale

In terms of sharpness, I give no comment - I have not printed larger than A4 of these recordings - and the term should be the standard, not the 100% view on screen. I find the sharpness very good (no, the reason is not enough sharpness for a excellent - but I reckon the maximum design handicaps that are carry).