50L vs TS-E 45

[7enderbender]

I've been tossing around the idea of either trading my 50 1.4 for a 50L or instead add a TS-E45 (to be used with my 5DII). I know, very different lenses, different applications. But I think both could work for me. My main interest with these would be control over sharpness/unsharp areas for things or people that are not necessarily too far away. Shooting wide open for the most part would be the objective here (where I see a potential improvement over my 50 1.4 in addition to build quality).

The straightforward thing to do is obviously to go 50L and be happy. But then again, I recently had the joy to play around with one of the old FD tilt shift lenses. I really liked that thing and the results (35mm on a APS-C sensor).

My favorite focal lengths are probably 50 and 135. I have no real longing for the 35L at this point and the 85L is too expensive.

Any thoughts or experiences? How well would the TS double as a macro-like lens?

 

[hawkins132]

Go for the tilt shift lens. I have both the 50 1.4 and 50 1.2L. Image quality wise you can't tell the difference between the two unless you blow the image up and look really close, even then it's hard to tell. You can also see it in their similar MTF charts from Canon's site. I bought the 50 1.2L for its better build quality, better focusing, 1.2 aperture and mostly importantly my professional shoots that makes me money.

Since you're not in my situation, a tilt shift will give you much more FUN in return. 50 1.2L is not that much different than what you've already got with the 50 1.4. Don't give me wrong, I love my 50 L, but unless you're making money from photography, or rich, it doesn't justify 4x the price of the 50 1.4.

 

[RLPhoto]

50L > TS45mm

50L for 50mm freaks like ourselves.

 

[Random Orbits]

The reviews indicate that the TS45 is the softest of the Canon TS lenses wide open, and it lacks the rotation between the tilt and shift functions that are on the newer TS-E 24 II and 17.

 

[bdunbar79]

If I take this question objectively, that is, the 50L or the TS-E 45 lens, then I'd get the 50L. It is a way sharper lens. However, I realize the TS-E 45 lens is not nearly the best TS lens. If money were no object I'd probably get the 24 II TS lens. But, answering your question specifically, the 50L.

 

[kirispupis]

The 50L and TS-E 45 are completely different lenses - used for completely different purposes.

I am a big fan of TS lenses and have the 90, 17, and 24 II. If I had the money though I wouldn't buy the 45 but instead would pick up the Schneider 50 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818355-REG/Schneider_06_1064917_PC_TS_Super_Angulon.html

Other than the price, the main reason I have yet to pick up either the 45 or the Schneider is the rumors that Canon will update the 45. If they do so I expect they'll release something of comparable quality to the Schneider for less money.

 

[Plato the Wise]

Have you tried a lensbaby for selective focus?

 

[Caps18]

24 TS-e with a 2x... (is it possible? the F-number won't be too good in less than bright conditions)

I've used my 17 TS-e before with my 1.4x and it works good.

Back to the question, I think you should wait for Canon to update the 45 and 90 TS-e lenses. But even then the 50mm F/1.2 is a great lens. It is next on my list, and the last one that I really would like. I would have to vote for the 50mm f/1.2 for both the autofocus and low light capabilities.

 

[drjlo]

24 TS-e with a 2x... (is it possible? the F-number won't be too good in less than bright conditions)

I've used my 17 TS-e before with my 1.4x and it works good.

Back to the question, I think you should wait for Canon to update the 45 and 90 TS-e lenses.

I tried the 24 TS-E II with Canon 2x III, and the combo works. Unlike with other Canon lenses, the 2x III does not automatically lose 2-stops of light with 24 TS-E, or at least the body still indicates f3.5 even with 2x III on. Exif data reports 24 mm, not 48 mm, so the body is likely not even "seeing" the 2x III, and the exposure is a little off with the 2x in there, which is easy enough to correct in post.

I wish Canon would hurry and release the next gen 45 and 90 TS-E. If the new 45 is as sharp as 24, it would likely just stay on my body instead of my 50L. An added bonus would be f2.0 or faster, but that's probably asking too much..

 

[7enderbender]

If I take this question objectively, that is, the 50L or the TS-E 45 lens, then I'd get the 50L. It is a way sharper lens. However, I realize the TS-E 45 lens is not nearly the best TS lens. If money were no object I'd probably get the 24 II TS lens. But, answering your question specifically, the 50L.

Thanks for that. Problem is that 24mm is not really a focal length I'm particular interested in. 17 even less so. Not sure what to make of the 90mm TS. I could see it being an interesting portrait lens but that I would probably resort to my 135L in that range for the most part.

But I think I'm leaning more towards the 50L anyway at this point. Ultimately, I've come to realize that I'm really back to where I started 20-some years ago when learning how to use my dad's A1 with a 50 and a 135 and that was that.