14mm f/2.8L USM v.s. 17-40mm f/4L

[Jet Lim]

If you could afford to buy only one of the 2 lenses, which will you go for and why?

[jywong]

depend what u want to shoot loh..for me.
if shoot landscape,i will go 14mm.
if shoot street,a.d wedding,portrait,i will go 17-40mm.
why?
14mm more wide,and i can say it have more good quality.(prime lens)
so,u will more use ur mind to think how to get prefect crop of view.
17-40mm,have zoom can let u fast to compose picture...
myself take 17-40mm,because i feel it more suit me...

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

you're comparing apples and oranges. one is a prime, another a zoom. i dont think its a fair comparison.

the zoom offers flexibility with less sharpness and light. the prime offers the opposite. it all depends on how youd like to shoot.

[Belle&Sebastain]

Originally Posted by Jet Lim If you could afford to buy only one of the 2 lenses, which will you go for and why?

if i want to shoot landscrapes or stills, i rather buy the 24mm TS-E and shift the lens and stitch to get a wider view.

if i want to do documentary wide, i work with the sigma 14mm, its cheaper or buy sigma 20mm 1.8

if i want the zoom, i rather buy the 16-35, 17-35 or 20-35 as i dun like the restriction of a f4.

in short i would would most unlikely buy either the 14 or 17-40

[Snoweagle]

I myself have the 17-40 and i'll use this lens for my general shooting including portraits, streets and landscapes. The 14mm IMO have too much distortion.

[kraterz]

Not fair comparison. Anyway for me 17-40L is much better value for $$$. It give me great service and great pics each time. 14L is too $$$$.

[panzerpunk]

Might as well buy a 85L with that kind of money you spend trying to get the 14L

[ST1100]

i almost got a 14mm prime, but after some internet research and comparison of full-res pictures, i decided none of them (Sigma, Tamron, Canon) are worth it for the price. FWIW, It's very hard to tell if the "poor quality" at the edges are due to 14mm distortion or poor lens quality. i ended up with a Sigma 12-24.

The 14/2.8L is about double the price of the 17-40/4L. The Tamron/Sigma 14mms are around $1.2k.

[NorthernLights]

ST1100 is right.

The Canon EF 14mm f2.8 L is way too expensive for the kind of quality it produces. I have not heard of very good reviews.

If it's just a comparison between the 2, get the 17-40L. Contrast and sharpness is better in a good copy.

For me, I went super wide prime with a 15mm f2.8 Fisheye and defish. The fisheye is only 1/3 the price of the 14mm. After de-fishing and cropping, it is still wider than the 14mm rectilinear. You can check out here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Example is shot with a 1.3x crop factor or APS-H cam.

[Snoweagle]

Nice pic man.

[Terence]

I own both lenses. The 14L is used mainly for low light shots. I much prefer to use the 17-40L for its superior image chracteristics at the wide end. Mine doesn't move much from 17mm. I firmly believe that the 17-40L surpasses any of the wide angle zooms, including the 16-35L in many respects... sharpness, AF speed, contrast, colors... the EF 15 FE is a close second.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Terence I own both lenses. The 14L is used mainly for low light shots. I much prefer to use the 17-40L for its superior image chracteristics at the wide end. Mine doesn't move much from 17mm. I firmly believe that the 17-40L surpasses any of the wide angle zooms, including the 16-35L in many respects... sharpness, AF speed, contrast, colors... the EF 15 FE is a close second.

Many others think that the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM is better than the 17-40mm f/4L USM in some ways, not forgetting it's a f/2.8 lens.

[haagen_dazs]

interestingly i never thought canon's wide angles made the cut
i have used the 17-40 and it is disappointing on a 5D
sorry but i dont own a ultra wide of the canon line up.