At 17mm, images shot with this lens have noticeable barrel distortion, but that's normal for lenses with an FOV (field of view) this wide

The short end, like most wide zooms, shows some barrel distortion

* Well controlled Barrel Distortion even at 17mm

This lens doesn't come free of distortions, especially so at the wide end where you can notice some barrel distortion

At 17mm wide angle, barrel distortion is noticeable but relatively mild

Some fairly hefty barrel distortion at the 17mm end this drops over the range to very little to none at the 40mm mark, somewhat expected for any ultra wide angle lens and can be corrected via software if required.- Vignetting is heavy at the 17mm end and still a bit at the top position of 40mm stopping down at the wide end tames the problem somewhat at f8 there is still a bit of darkening but significantly less than

What would you expect?You might expect some barrel distortion from such a wide lens, but I am not sure you would expect such really poor sharpness at the edges of a lens that is L glass, and that the distortion would come up so quickly

with the crop factor, I get almost zero barrel distortion at the widest edges.

Photos with this lens are very good concerning sharpness, color and contrast and there is a minimum of barrel distortion as well

The short end, like most wide zooms, shows some barrel distortion

It is famous for extreme barrel distortion at 17mm and chroma aberrations

The wider range of 10-22 certainly gives you a lot of freedom, but I found it to be a bit too artificial due to the unavoidable barrel distortion

Great lens for the beginner as well as for the seasoned pro

While it is reasonably sharp at f4 across the focal range, it is not as sharp as when stopped down to f5.6.

It's as sharp as or slightly sharper than the 24-105 f4

This lens is nowhere near as sharp as the Canon 50

Not sure if this is normal on an APS-C camera or not, but I'm a little mystified as to how this is happening!

It's just does not have the 'hoopla' of lenses like the 70-200mm, but as good as that is for telephoto, this is superb for wide angle

But sharpens up a lot in the corners by going to F/4.5 and is as sharp as it's going to get by around F/8 where it seems about as sharp as any zoom I have and is approaching the sharpness of a prime lens at 17mm

The pictures were nowhere near as sharp as I had hoped for (Although I had no illusions that every picture would be tack sharp just because I got a new fancy lens.

Nowhere near as sharp as you'd expect from an L lens

I'm still reviewing, but my initial thoughts are the focus isn't quite as sharp as it could be?

I use it to shoot from an elevated angle as well as for interior photos.

Good quality glass and one of the least expensive L lenses you can buy.

In the world of lenses i think you really get what you pay for,even though this is a cheaper L series it still delivers the goods

It's one of the less expensive "L" lenses, making it a relative bargain.

It's one of the cheapest L

Like all L lenses you do get an included lens hoodA quick hit summary of the stronger and weaker points of the lensPros:+ Excellent build in line with the L badge top quality construction and sealing the lens is robust and built to last+ Pretty good sharpness esp in the central area, but really needs stopping down full at the 17mm mark (about f11) to tighten the corners up at f8 the extreme corners will have some softening (APS-C users won't see this at all as it's cropped out) very good at f4

It makes a good first L-lens, and a staple in the arsenal.

First off, if you're a pro with a bag full of $2000 lenses, you're probably not interested in this, the 2nd least expensive "L" lens

And if you have money to burn, definitely look at the more expensive L lenses.

The 17-40 L on the other hand is just amazing

f/2.8 L - extremely fast, extremely sharp

This like, what, the second cheapest L lens available

The price makes it one of the cheaper L lenses on the market today, but it doesn't sacrifice build quality, or image quality

The construction s typical L - great

For an L-series lens, I'm surprised that this lens isn't sharper, but it's also one of the least expensive L-series lenses

Overall, you are paying ~40% less than any other L lense and let's face it, that L is worth a lot

Great L lens for the Canon's line of ultra wide angle zoom lens

I already knew what was going on long before buying this lens, this is still a great L lens what will be with me when I do get around to purchasing a full frame camera.

Looks like all my lenses will be L from now on.

Final summary: This is not a fantastic lens but still a legendary "L" and is worth the price

This like, what, the second cheapest L lens available

But for instance the regular EF 28-135 non-L is sharper at 28-40 than this lens is.

Not bad for the cheapest L lens.

I normally prefer the 17-40 F/4 L over the 24-70 on the 5D Mark II unless I am shooting

And since its Canon's cheapest "L" lens, you really can't go wrong on the price either

Well, I only own one other L, the 100-400mm f/4-5.6, which I love - but I was still rather disappointed in this one

The build quality is worse than L-series but still pretty good

It then becomes a standard zoom with the 1.6 crop factor and is a great first L lens because of its price

Not really, I expected some issues regarding glass simply because it's a very inexpensive 'L' series.

As one would expect from L-series glass, clear with good contrast and color

Of course, it is not the best l lens it obviously has aberrations, fringing, slightly soft corners and

I'm just glad Canon made a somewhat affordable L lens for us amateurs who want to save up for a nice piece of equipment.

If you need super fast and sharp I would go with a prime or maybe 16-35mm

If you need super fast and sharp I would go with a prime or maybe 16-35mm