That is my quote "as good or better"... I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE. I was in shock. In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens. I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses. The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on. It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article.
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.
I'm happy for you for you enthusiasm over your 17mm setup, you have good reason to. But the review you refer to must be against the old 24mm TS-E. The version II is optically nearly perfect. Extremely sharp and sharper than the 17mm, CA, flare, distortion and vignetting is very well controlled and color and contrast are absolute top notch. And so is the 17mm. The pixle peepers will probably give the 24mm the highest grades, but to me, the quality differences between the two are academic.
I had not tried the 17mm+1.4xIII combo before, but did yesterday. It works surprisingly well, but the results are not as good as those you get from the 24mm TS-E 3.5L II (the differences are more than academic here). I did not do a very thorough test of how much tilt & shift I got from one compared to the other, but it seemed the 24mm gave me more of both. I'm sure someone else in here has done the comparison.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 04:10:03 AM by Eldar »
5DIII, 1DX, 7DII, 8-15/4L, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 200-400/4L IS 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Zeiss 35/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, Zeiss Otus 85/1.4, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II