Samyand 14mm vs Canon 17-40mm

I had just been debating the same thing for a while. In the end I decided to get the 17-40 for the flexibility and the ability to use filters.

While I'm not a huge fan of the 17-40L, it does have good IQ ~ as long as you correct the CA. That's its biggest weakness IMO.

I fix the CA in Lightroom, a bit of sharpening and it gives great results.

Interesting: B&H carries three different rebrands of the 14mm lens, Bower (300$), Samyang (360$), and Rokinon (400$), and only the Bower has a warning on the main page:

" * Note: Though this lens will cover the imaging sensor of a full-frame DSLR, it is better optimized for use with DSLRs containing smaller APS-C format sensors. As such you might notice softer focus and some light fall-off towards the edges of the frame when using a full-frame DSLR. If you do plan on using this lens with a full-frame DSLR we recommend you set the lens no wider (faster) than f/8 for optimum image quality."

So QC seems to be more of an issue with the cheapest Bower.

In terms of user ratings, Samyang (4.4 stars) is a bit ahead of the other two (4.2 stars).

BrickR wrote in post #16607990
Review you might find interesting http://www.dustinabbot​t.net …6c162b2#contact​-form-1744

Yeah, most definitely getting this lens very soon!

Samyang is the best UWA I have

If you already have a 24-105L, just grab a Samyang 14 and don't look back. The 17-40L is pretty pathetic on full-frame, unfortunately. Unless you're an ultra-wide fanatic, I think you'll get by with the gap between 14 and 24.

I owned both the Samyang and the 17-40L for about a year before selling my 6D, so here are my impressions.

Samyang 14:
+ Quite sharp
+ Sharpness is very even over the image; corners are just as good as the center stopped down, and only slightly softer wide open
+ Incredible value for the price
+ Very little flare or CA
+ Very little coma, in case you're into shooting stars at night
- Color rendition and microcontrast are not as good as Canon L lenses
- Extremely pronounced, complex distortion, but a lens profile in ACR or LR can fix this for the most part
- Vignetting is absolutely ridiculous at f/2.8, and still pretty bad at f/4
- No filters due to bulbous front element and permanent hood

Canon 17-40L:
+ Center is quite sharp
+ Excellent color rendition and microcontrast; among the best I've seen from a zoom
+ Takes standard 77mm filters
+ Great build quality for the price
- Sharpness deteriorates quickly away from center, especially near 17mm. Halfway between the center and corner, it's mediocre. Three-fourths of the way to the corner, it's bad. Near the corner, it's just mush. Stopping down only helps so much. It's basically unusable at f/4, and don't let anyone convince you that it's "just fine stopped down;" it's still really bad in the corners at f/8. OTOH, if you're at the long end near 40mm, you can get decent results stopped down.
- Significant vignetting, especially near 17mm (not quite as bad as the Samyang though)

brettjrob wrote in post #16609548
If you already have a 24-105L, just grab a Samyang 14 and don't look back. The 17-40L is pretty pathetic on full-frame, unfortunately. Unless you're an ultra-wide fanatic, I think you'll get by with the gap between 14 and 24.

I owned both the Samyang and the 17-40L for about a year before selling my 6D, so here are my impressions.

Samyang 14:
+ Quite sharp
+ Sharpness is very even over the image; corners are just as good as the center stopped down, and only slightly softer wide open
+ Incredible value for the price
+ Very little flare or CA
+ Very little coma, in case you're into shooting stars at night
- Color rendition and microcontrast are not as good as Canon L lenses
- Extremely pronounced, complex distortion, but a lens profile in ACR or LR can fix this for the most part
- Vignetting is absolutely ridiculous at f/2.8, and still pretty bad at f/4
- No filters due to bulbous front element and permanent hood

Canon 17-40L:
+ Center is quite sharp
+ Excellent color rendition and microcontrast; among the best I've seen from a zoom
+ Takes standard 77mm filters
+ Great build quality for the price
- Sharpness deteriorates quickly away from center, especially near 17mm. Halfway between the center and corner, it's mediocre. Three-fourths of the way to the corner, it's bad. Near the corner, it's just mush. Stopping down only helps so much. It's basically unusable at f/4, and don't let anyone convince you that it's "just fine stopped down;" it's still really bad in the corners at f/8. OTOH, if you're at the long end near 40mm, you can get decent results stopped down.
- Significant vignetting, especially near 17mm (not quite as bad as the Samyang though)

Thank you so much for your personal input. Continuous comments really helps me reassure that I'm making the correct decision in getting the 14mm

Now I have another question directed towards the red text I highlighted above.
How exactly do I work with profiles and correction as for distortion and vignetting?
Is there a way to make LR auto correct all my photos if I want it to (when importing a session with the 14mm)? Or do I manually have to correct each shot individually while editing? I have been using LR and CS6 for quite some time, but am very unfamiliar with the whole profiles and settings as for correcting distortion and vignetting. Detailed explanation would be appreciated!

JM Photos wrote in post #16606578
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!

Heya,

3mm is actually a big difference. As you go ultrawide, the distortion increases, and the angle really increases with each mm, it's very noticeable (unlike a few mm when you're already at a long focal length, you barely notice that).

The 14mm F2.8 Samyang/Rokinon is an excellent lens. Very sharp. But you really need to understand that it can't take filters due to it's shape. That may be a problem for some landscape that you do. You could probably adapt some large 100mm plate filters to it some how, but it quickly starts to become an issue.

Very best,

JM Photos wrote in post #16606578
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 Samyang (Rokinon), a Canon 16-35L and a 24-70L f2.8 II.

Lately especially when wanting to travel a little lighter the 16-35L has been staying home and the 14mm gets to go shooting. I've found, a least with my shooting style that when using the Canon I'm racked down to 16mm almost always anyway and the 14mm becomes welcome.

The 24-70 has awesome quality at it's short end anyway so I prefer to use that lens as much as possible in the shorter focal length range.

Ymmv,

Roger

brettjrob wrote in post #16609548
If you already have a 24-105L, just grab a Samyang 14 and don't look back. The 17-40L is pretty pathetic on full-frame, unfortunately. Unless you're an ultra-wide fanatic, I think you'll get by with the gap between 14 and 24.

I owned both the Samyang and the 17-40L for about a year before selling my 6D, so here are my impressions.

Samyang 14:
+ Quite sharp
+ Sharpness is very even over the image; corners are just as good as the center stopped down, and only slightly softer wide open
+ Incredible value for the price
+ Very little flare or CA
+ Very little coma, in case you're into shooting stars at night
- Color rendition and microcontrast are not as good as Canon L lenses
- Extremely pronounced, complex distortion, but a lens profile in ACR or LR can fix this for the most part
- Vignetting is absolutely ridiculous at f/2.8, and still pretty bad at f/4
- No filters due to bulbous front element and permanent hood

Canon 17-40L:
+ Center is quite sharp
+ Excellent color rendition and microcontrast; among the best I've seen from a zoom
+ Takes standard 77mm filters
+ Great build quality for the price
- Sharpness deteriorates quickly away from center, especially near 17mm. Halfway between the center and corner, it's mediocre. Three-fourths of the way to the corner, it's bad. Near the corner, it's just mush. Stopping down only helps so much. It's basically unusable at f/4, and don't let anyone convince you that it's "just fine stopped down;" it's still really bad in the corners at f/8. OTOH, if you're at the long end near 40mm, you can get decent results stopped down.
- Significant vignetting, especially near 17mm (not quite as bad as the Samyang though)

I think saying the 17-40 is 'pathetic' may be a poor choice of words-a short visit to the 17-40 thread would show countless images that are quite good?

17-40

Mast3rChi3f wrote in post #16597539

Somebloke wrote in post #16609739
I think saying the 17-40 is 'pathetic' may be a poor choice of words-a short visit to the 17-40 thread would show countless images that are quite good?

Look in the far right lower corner (the only corner which actually has any detail in that shot anyway). There is no detail there, just mush.

I have a 17-40, and I wish it weren't so, since everything else about the lens is great (colours, build, weather sealing, price, range, AF, flare resistance) but it is, and we have to live with it.

What that photo does show is that across-the-frame sharpness is not a key ingredient of a good photo.

People who worry about the corners are starring at the computer the whole day to spot some faults. No, it is not the sharpest lens for the corners, but I never had to throw a picture away by it's corners. Seriously, people worry to much about such thing.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/merijn89/119804​07644/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/merijn89/105953​65585/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/merijn89/103903​57063/

The 17-40 is not pathetic.

You guys still didn't answer my other question from above. I'll paste it back again in case you missed it.

I have both the 14mm saymang and the 17-40L and I'm a UWA junkie. To fix up distortion I use PT Lens and at least from my research is one of the best methods. There are profiles you can find online for LR that I hear is pretty good, but I haven't tried it.

I think having both is nice, but to be honest I see myself selling both for a 16-35II because it fits my needs very well and I prefer to carry less lenses. If I had to choose one or the other I would take 17-40 over the 14mm for being more useful in general, but again everyone's needs and lens lineup are different.

Here is a recent shot that I used the 14mm. I almost loss the huge lens cap that evening, but luckily some lady on the bridge saw me drop it. PT lens cleaned up the distortion very well, but big part of it was making sure I kept my camera leveled to begin with.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/boingyman/11864​540675/