14L or 17L

Charlie wrote in post #16552538
with this review available, not sure why anyone would bother with the 14L.... buy once cry once..... haha, cry twice more like it.

It's still sharper than the 17-40mm or 16-35mm. And over the Samyang it's got AF and it's got almost no distortion, which is the big issue with the Samyang.

I plan on the samyang, but that is just me. I don't even comprehend how I how could have buyers remorse based on the images and cost. I wouldn't say I have a thing for red rings
Like the op, but I am done with zooms and ehh glass....The samyang by all accounts is really nice glass, so it would qualify regardless of the bonus price.


That said, between the ts17 and 14, 2 totally different lenses. And @mornb, you got it mixed up, the ts17 is more for architecture and keeping lines correct not visa versa. So with that, I would say if you shoot people/landscapes/hand​held the 14 and 17 if you want a niche lens for cityscapes, insides of buildings etc.

Mornnb wrote in post #16552648
It's still sharper than the 17-40mm or 16-35mm. And over the Samyang it's got AF and it's got almost no distortion, which is the big issue with the Samyang.

not sure if you caught the review, but even with distortion correction, the Samyang is still slightly wider than the 14L. Cant say I need the AF with this type of lens, it's so easy prefocusing, even capturing kids running around, shooting wide open, is a breeze.

I guess if you absolutely need the AF and filters, then you need the 14L, but it's just my opinion that since it's so wide, there's a ridiculous amount of DOF AF is not needed. This lens is so funny for landscapes, I tend to skip the live view zooming, and really only use live view to level out my shots.

I love the 14L. It has all the advantages of being a Canon including the ability to communicate with your camera in all respects. The Samyang is a totally manual. One thing I seldom see mentioned is the fact that the Samyang is a disposable lens, i.e. no repair centers or repair parts. Good they're cheap since Samyang won't/can't fix them...

Bakewell wrote in post #16552948
I love the 14L. It has all the advantages of being a Canon including the ability to communicate with your camera in all respects. The Samyang is a totally manual. One thing I seldom see mentioned is the fact that the Samyang is a disposable lens, i.e. no repair centers or repair parts. Good they're cheap since Samyang won't/can't fix them...

And if you needed to buy one every third year (very doubtful it would be that often), you still would not have spent as much as you did on the Canon in 18 years.

I am not an UWA fan, but when you need it - you need it. I (personally for me) do not ever see justifying $2234 on the 14L. That said- Yes, I would much rather have a 14L. Chances are I'll go Sigma 14mm or 15mm, since I would like AF.

jimewall wrote in post #16553004
And if you needed to buy one every third year (very doubtful it would be that often), you still would not have spent as much as you did on the Canon in 18 years.

Agreed, but not exactly ECO friendly. And you'd still have a very high distortion, totally manual Samyang.

kevinstinks wrote in post #16550171
Thats kinda what I'm thinking. Also, I feel using the 14L handheld will be utilized more often than using the 17L on a tripod. I guess if I really think about it, you cant compare their uses. Two very different lenses.

In regards to price, I'm not worried about the price. I just want to make sure I make the right decision the first time around. Plus, Im a sucker for red rings

I've used the 14 L II and 17 TS-E. Both are excellent lenses. I've used the 17 TS-E handheld and it really is the more versatile lens. I say 17 TS-E.

To the OP. I own both the 17 TS and 24 TS-E II. They now reside on my Sony A7 and A7r. A few Christmases ago, I decided to buy both. I have not regretted it since.

Lots of great advice in this thread. I appreciate all the responses! JDizzle, great photo