Diane, The last shot appears (EXIF) to be from the 17/2.8. CA is noticeable.
I am wondering how useful this lens is going to be for me (for street). I will know in a few short days...
By george, I think you are right. I forgot I put that lens on at all for shooting here--was using the 9-18, 24 f/2.8 and then at one point, the 35 f/2.8 (its a pain not having the lens info in the EXIF and I've yet to use Godfrey's suggestion to extract and add that--sometimes I write it down--sometimes I just know from the FL--this is one case that the FL overlaps).
I went back and looked at the RAW at 100%. There is no CA on the metal at all--the only place discernible is on the light fixture to the left (red) and right (blue)--I inadvertently had the CA correction turned off (late night LOL) and now when I turned it on (LR) I could easily correct that with a small correction for red and blue and all edges--no issue.
I don't know if you shoot in jpeg how this will go, but shooting in RAW, it corrects easily and in fact, showed less than I thought after you mentioned it. I expected to see it on the metal gate to the right--but didn't.
Guess I need to change that heading--altho' the 17 would still qualify for a wide I guess LOL--just not ultra wide.
Diane