Canon TSE or Zeiss UWA???

jdizzle wrote in post #13559491
If you want to compare optics to the Sam 14, I'd say the 17 TS is the better lens. The 17 TS is superior in every way from build and mechanics.

If you are worried about build...just pick up a couple of spare Samyang's...your still way ahead when it comes to money.

Thanks, Julian. It's a bit less than the Novoflex. The image comparisons between the Nikon 14-24 and Canon 14L on their website shows dramatic differences in the corners. The website also states that the adapter is made by Novoflex.

i would go with the 17 TS-E of the two... maybe look into a 10-20mm as another wide option?

Hogloff wrote in post #13559705
Why? Images from the Samyang are much better than from the Canon 14L which costs 4 times as much.

I own the Samyang 14 and in my opinion I would trade it for a Canon 17 TSE in an instant.
For an inexpensive lens the Samyang is a great buy, but it does have its limitations:

The focus calibration is off a mile, the infinity focus point is at 1m on the lens barrel.
The Distortion is pretty severe. I use PT lens but it is a necessary post process step with this lens.
Mine is not sharp at f2.8 but is fine from f4 onwards, while the 17 TSE is sharp wide open at f4.
the Samyang will vignette pretty strongly at f2.8 anyway, so I never use it at an aperture wider than f4.

Finally the 17 TSE has lens movements, which I enjoy being creative with. By shifting the 17 TSE one can get a much wider aov than a 14mm lens.
Mike K

Hogloff wrote in post #13559705
Why? Images from the Samyang are much better than from the Canon 14L which costs 4 times as much.

He is talking about the 17mm TSE, not the 14L. If someone is on the budget, sure, get the Samyang. Well, he is not. Besides, he is probably going to use the lens on the 5dmarkII. Frankly, the sensor will out resolve the Samyang.

Hogloff wrote in post #13559705
Why? Images from the Samyang are much better than from the Canon 14L which costs 4 times as much.

Not the 14mm, the TS-E 17mm...the tilt, shift, and rotations are worth the money (or not, depending on how you use a wide angle, but it doesn't take much creativity to find circumstances where you'll wish you had the shifts and tilts at least).

On a 5D II, for a wide for landscapes you just can't go past the 14L. I'd have one in an instant but there is only a poofteenth between the 14L and the 16-35 and I'm not paying a small fortune for a poofteenth improvement.

RAW RAW RAW wrote in post #13560110
On a 5D II, for a wide for landscapes you just can't go past the 14L. I'd have one in an instant but there is only a poofteenth between the 14L and the 16-35 and I'm not paying a small fortune for a poofteenth improvement.

At 14mm, distortions would be a b-tch...

Hogloff wrote in post #13559709
If you are worried about build...just pick up a couple of spare Samyang's...your still way ahead when it comes to money.

The money is not an issue. Even the OP stated about cost.

Two separate comparisons. 14L vs Samyang 14 and 17TSE and Samyang 14.

IMO it's worth getting the Samyang and the 17TSE. The Samyang has superb optical quality and is basically pennies, while the 17TSE has all the advantages outlined above.

TooManyShots wrote in post #13560154
At 14mm, distortions would be a b-tch...

Nah....I can't wait to borrow my mate's new 14L. I expect that the distortion will be no more trouble to deal with than from my 16-35 at 16mm. There are plenty of ways of mitigating distortion effects......particula​rly in landscapes where distortion is not so obvious anyway. I really think that the 14L will be a ripper landscape lens.

RAW RAW RAW wrote in post #13560471
Nah....I can't wait to borrow my mate's new 14L. I expect that the distortion will be no more trouble to deal with than from my 16-35 at 16mm. There are plenty of ways of mitigating distortion effects......particula​rly in landscapes where distortion is not so obvious anyway. I really think that the 14L will be a ripper landscape lens.

If you don't want to deal with distortion, the 17 TS and 24 TS II are excellent! I don't like to crop even if you have plug-ins like PT Lens.

big_g wrote in post #13559267
The Zeiss 21 is too close to my 24TSE to be worthwhile spending the money on really

I want really WIDE......

I use my 17 40 at 17 quite a lot so I think the 17 TSE is probably going to get purchased later this evening unless someone else comes up with a better idea

If I need even wider then I can stitch a pano from 3 shifted shots as well which will probably give a similar FOV to about 14mm I guess

I got annoyed with filling the frame to the extreme corners and the performance of the 17-40 below 21 and those corners.

Got a TS-E 17L, never looked back.

The TS-E 17L reaches 10.2 mm when shifted horizintally for panos, and 12.8 mm when shifted vertically, all in landscape mode.

Kind regards, Wim

Sorry guys, I've been out for dinner and missed all this conversation.

Pretty sure I've decided on the 17 TSE as no-one has suggested anything else that would float my boat. I thought about the 14 2.8L Mk2 but the TSE seems to have minimal distortion and can do other things for similar money. I'm sure the Samyang is pretty good but I hate distortion and I am lucky to have a pretty flexible budget to get the best

So, Mr Kerso will be getting a bank transfer tomorrow morning and I look forward to receiving the 17 TSE in a day or 2

big_g wrote in post #13560541
Sorry guys, I've been out for dinner and missed all this conversation.

Pretty sure I've decided on the 17 TSE as no-one has suggested anything else that would float my boat. I thought about the 14 2.8L Mk2 but the TSE seems to have minimal distortion and can do other things for similar money. I'm sure the Samyang is pretty good but I hate distortion and I am lucky to have a pretty flexible budget to get the best

So, Mr Kerso will be getting a bank transfer tomorrow morning and I look forward to receiving the 17 TSE in a day or 2

I see you have the 24 TS II. So, you're in familiar territory. I bought both and never looked back!