Ok professional sounds good. Do your own review then maybe? Have a great day and keep smiling

You can create fantastic works of art with almost any lens, so long as you are creative and unique. The problem lies with professional photography. As a general rule, for landscape and astrophotography, most clients are going to want prints/raw copies that are tac sharp. Any artistic effects beyond color grading/cleanup would be done by request in post. These budget lenses tend to have some "artistic flare" built in by design. Unless you received a one off, holy grail of a TTArtisan lens, your copy probably isn't any better than any other lens by this company. Lots of pincushion effect with this 17mm lens, vignetting at the edges, uneven focal plane, burring towards the edges, flaring, chromatic abberation from light sources, etc. This makes for a unique image that can be quite artistic, but not suitable for professional photographers who may need to cater to clients who don't want that. It's easier to add those things than to remove them during post.

@@Overtorange Well said, Yoshi. Of course a whole lot of commercial work has been seeking that "organic" look for quite a while. But that may still not be most shooter's bread and butter, I get it.

@@lanceevans1689 Personally, I love the aesthetic that these lenses provide. Having a more home-grown and vintage tone makes a scene resonate more in my opinion. Still, there seems to be a huge emphasis on the hyper clinical and resolving within the professional space. I suppose it depends on what type of work you intend on doing that dictates what sort of lenses you are able to use. You could strap a magnifying glass to an accordion style focusing barrel and make art with it, but good luck convincing a landscape magazine to buy your prints.

@@Overtorange My pandemic passtime was collecting old Canon FD lenses. So Im with you there.

astro only uses manual tho…

The review says it's better than Sigma.