| Year | 1973 |
| Lens Groups | 9 |
| Lens Element | 10 |
| Aperature Blades | 6 |
| Minimum Aperture | f/22 |
| Closest Focusing | 0.25 m |
| Max. Magnifcation | 1:7.9 (0.126x) |
| Filter Size | 72 mm |
| Diameter x Length | 75 x 58 mm |
| Weight | 345 gr (0.76 lb) |
| Hood | - |
I had been using a fantastic Vivitar 19/3.8 that was fine but a bit mushy in the corners and if detail was needed there, it couldn't be attained. Saw one of these at KEH and picked it up, rated EX. Its build is solid, a heavy lens compared to the plastic marvels of today, but not anything you need worry about. It easily is a match for the Vivitar, with a more solid build, a bit better IQ than my 19. Edge resolution is superior, distortion is pretty minimal compared with other ultra wides. If you want a quality ultra wide, this is her. If you have less money to spend, consider the Vivitar. Should I have spent as much as I did for a "specialty" lens? Probably not. Am I satisfied? Yes.
A special purpose lens for most, but a very useful one for broad landscapes, close quarters or just a unique perspective. I like the lens very much, and use it frequently. As mentioned their can be some flare, because of the large front element, but it is not a problem that crops up with any frequency. Build quality is typical Canon, which is very fine. I'd give it a 9.8 for build, if that were available.
This is one of two lenses I used exclusively for several years, the other being the 50mm f/1.4. Of course this is considered by many to be a bit of a specialist lens and not necessarily right for everyone. Can exhibit flare in some conditions, but not especially prone; this is to be expected in lenses with large front elements.