In addition to the substantial difference in focal length, the 8-15L is a Fisheye lens, whereas the 17-40L is Rectilinear. Sure, you can "convert" fisheye in post (to a degree), but ...
The Bob Atkins articles are great, I recommend anyone interested follow your link.
I've found I really like the 14-15mm range for landscapes, but not having a normal lens cover for the 8-15mm is problematic. The 17-40L shines in terms of practical usage, I just like wider.
The thing I like about the 8-15mm is the exta range over the 15mm, which for me is more useful than the extra f-stop. But I can't say I'm a fan of having to post-process every shot when I want rectilinear.
The build quality of the 8-14L is spectacular too. The 17-40L is great too, but I was more impressed with the fisheye build.
alfarmer wrote:
The Bob Atkins articles are great, I recommend anyone interested follow your link.
I've found I really like the 14-15mm range for landscapes, but not having a normal lens cover for the 8-15mm is problematic. The 17-40L shines in terms of practical usage, I just like wider.
The thing I like about the 8-15mm is the exta range over the 15mm, which for me is more useful than the extra f-stop. But I can't say I'm a fan of having to post-process every shot when I want rectilinear.
.
well then if you want wider than 17 on FF you have the choices of the 16-35 (not the greates gain) a prime 14mm or the Sigma 12-24 . the latest version of that lens is said to be very good. (or you could get the 17 TSE and stitch alot)
the 8-15 as others have stated is a completely different animal. and I dont know about you but I cant stand those full 'porthole' type Fishey shots , so on FF for me it would be a 15mm anyway. in which case I would just buy a decent used 15 FE and keep the 17-40 as well
I would keep both, because as has been mentioned, they are both VERY different.
The 17-40 is a Wide Angle, the 8-15 is a fisheye and has a fisheye effect. Sometimes you want the fisheye effect, and sometimes you don't. The fisheye of course can be 'corrected' to turn it into rectilinear, at the cost of lowering resolution towards the edges. I would definitely say then that the 8-15 is a specialty lens, and the 17-40 just covers a specific focal length.
17-40... Excellent lens... 8-15 is too "Fishy"... You could try the Samyang 14mm if you do not mind MF... I read it is exceptional for it's price range... Good luck...
By time you defish you've tortured and discarded enough pixels that you don't have much image left. It boggles the mind why somebody would get an L lens to defish and end up with much less than L quality after defishing.
If you are dead set on ultrawide, sell both and get the 14 L Mark II. Or get the Nikon 14-24 zoom.
Being that the 8-15 is a very, very specialized lens, only you can answer the question. Unless you are looking for new ways to use it, it's hard to imagine getting more use out of it compared to a more general-use lens like the 17-40, or whatever else you might have in your bag.
Monito wrote:
Build quality is over-rated as an attribute.
By time you defish you've tortured and discarded enough pixels that you don't have much image left. It boggles the mind why somebody would get an L lens to defish and end up with much less than L quality after defishing.
If you are dead set on ultrawide, sell both and get the 14 L Mark II. Or get the Nikon 14-24 zoom.
alfarmer wrote:
I have a 17-40L and 8-15L, but can only keep one of the two for use on my 5D.
Which would you keep, and why?
I would keep the 17-40L. I have had it for years. Reason? Well, from experience, its very versatile, good enough for most things and extremely durable/reliable. The 8-15L is a fisheye zoom, a cool but specialized lens. It sees little use compared to a 17-40 for most anything.
I also have the 14L II. It whips the 17-40L in image quality. It isnt close! But I mostly use the 14 for architecture interiors and buildings. For landscapes I use mostly the 17-40 or the 24 TSE. The 17-40 is what I take for travels. Most of the time its the only lens I take for that.
Jeff wrote:
Being that the 8-15 is a very, very specialized lens, only you can answer the question. Unless you are looking for new ways to use it, it's hard to imagine getting more use out of it compared to a more general-use lens like the 17-40, or whatever else you might have in your bag.
I'll agree unless you really like that fish eye look
