Samyand 14mm vs Canon 17-40mm

Well I thought I was going to be getting the Canon 17-40mm until I noticed a lot of amazing shots with the Samyang 14mm

The price is even more enticing...

What should I be considering before buying one of the two lenses?
Is there anything specific that I should know about the Samyang before just buying it over the 17-40?

The reason I am thinking about this lens over the 17-40 is because of the extra zoom that Ill be getting outward. Also I already have the 24-105 so wouldn't the 17-40 overlap quite a bit on the long end? If I wanted something in the 15-23 range couldn't I just shoot and mildly crop the 14mm shot?

Please let me know what you think!
Cheers!

I have the 17-40 and I'm thinking of adding the 14. I don't know if it would be able to replace the 17-40, as with the 14 I'd be constantly changing lenses when I want UWA vs normal. The 17-40 can do normal perspective shots as well as UWA without having to carry around a different lens.

I have both of those lenses as well as the 24-70. I see unique uses for all three. I also don't see an issue with the overlap between the 17-40 and the 24-70. Can you honestly imagine having to change the lens every time you decided you needed something just a touch longer than 24mm?

There is a fairly significant difference between 14mm and 17mm. Not only that but sometimes you want to be able to use AF and auto aperture. However, if you can only get one you have to think about what kind of situations you'll be using it in. 14mm is very wide, and you may find it to be a bit too wide to use for all your wide angle work.

having both is nice!
and you still come in at less $ than the 16-35...

the 14 Samyang/Rokinon lens will be manual of course-
but I find that kinda cool- itsa a nifty little beast...

Otohp.

While we are talking about the Samyang 14 2.8 how do i know which one is the correct one to buy? When I'm looking on Amazon I see it listed as either "Samyang 14 2.8" or "Rokinon 14 2.8" and then I saw one that started with a V like "V...... 14mm 2.8" but they were all listed as the same item. What the heck is the difference?

There is no difference. Samyang, Rokinon, Bower, Vivitar, etc., are all the same lenses, rebadged. Buy whichever is least expensive.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16606770
There is no difference. Samyang, Rokinon, Bower, Vivitar, etc., are all the same lenses, rebadged. Buy whichever is least expensive.

Okay. That's kinda weird but okay. Any bad experiences with any of them? Any preferences?

For your information, Samyang manufactures Rokinon's lenses. I've tried Samyang, and it's been pretty amazing for me. I say go with Samyang.

billashline0428 wrote in post #16606849
For your information, Samyang manufactures Rokinon's lenses. I've tried Samyang, and it's been pretty amazing for me. I say go with Samyang.

Thank you for the recommendation! Cheers!

I would buy the lens which fit your needs.

If you do Architecture I would not buy the 14 (due the distortion)
If you do Nightscapes I would not buy the 17-40
If you do Landscapes I would chose the 17-40 over the 14 because of the flexibility and it could hold filters. IQ wise the 14 is better.

The 17-40L is a really good lens. It is a pretty big zoom range. It looks bigger than my previous 24-70. I even sold the 24-70 because the 17-40L could do the job 95% as a walkaround lens.

I use it mainly for landscapes and architecture. It is probably the second worst lens (IQ wise) in my list but I am always amazed by it's quality. Nice contrast, great sharpness, it is a light and small lens, and if I had to choose one lens for a holiday, this would be it.

All the wider shots (architecture and landscapes) on my flickr are with this lens.

Bonbridge wrote in post #16606938
I would buy the lens which fit your needs.

If you do Architecture I would not buy the 14 (due the distortion)
If you do Nightscapes I would not buy the 17-40
If you do Landscapes I would chose the 17-40 over the 14 because of the flexibility and it could hold filters. IQ wise the 14 is better.

The 17-40L is a really good lens. It is a pretty big zoom range. It looks bigger than my previous 24-70. I even sold the 24-70 because the 17-40L could do the job 95% as a walkaround lens.

I use it mainly for landscapes and architecture. It is probably the second worst lens (IQ wise) in my list but I am always amazed by it's quality. Nice contrast, great sharpness, it is a light and small lens, and if I had to choose one lens for a holiday, this would be it.

All the wider shots (architecture and landscapes) on my flickr are with this lens.

Thank you for the input. All information is valuable to me. May I ask why you said not to get the 17-40 for nightscapes?

Because the 14mm is better in every way for it.

+ It is wider (which alows you to get even longer shutterspeeds without getting visable startrials)
+ It is wider (more sky in the frame)
+ It is a stop faster (ISO 1600 vs 3200)
+ It has a better starburst (Not 100% sure about this one)
+ It is a sharper lens (especially in the corners)

Thank you Bonbridge for the info I'm thinking now of grabbing the 14 and if I find myself needing extra reach I'll grab the 17-40 also. Can't beat the price of the 14.

Does anyone know if any major retailers sell this in store? I'm looking to get my hands on one quicker than any online retailer will ship.

Review you might find interesting http://www.dustinabbot​t.net …6c162b2#contact​-form-1744

I gave away my UWA zoom after using the samyang for a few months. When I really want that perspective distortion, 14mm was the answer. I used the 17-35 less and less, and had no issues jumping from 14mm straight to 24mm of my 24-70. it's a huge jump, but I just make it work. 14 is much more valuable than the flexibility of 17-35 or 40 in your case.