Canon 24 f/1.4L and 24mmL TS-E ii

[G]

I'm interested in purchasing one of these lenses. The majority of what I shoot is landscape however when arguing the pros and cons in my head I tend to lean more towards the 24 1.4 mainly because of its speed and AF. I'm wondering, for those owners of the 24mm TS-E, what uses do you find for it beyond landscape and architectural subjects?

 

[tron]

Isn't landscape and architectural use enough? I am more than satisfied with my TS-E 24L II.

The only use where I would think of 24mm 1.4L II would be astrophotography.

 

[preppyak]

The only use where I would think of 24mm 1.4L II would be astrophotography.

Yep, I had the same thought. AF would be a non-issue for me for landscape and architectural work, as I'd be manual focusing most of the time anyway.

The 24 T/S is going to be better in every regard than the 24L, except in AF and low-light. So, if you'll use the 24L to shoot people or other scenese where you need AF a decent amount of the time, then you'd have to get that. Otherwise, I think the T/S opens up more possibilities.

This review has comparisons of all the lenses in that range (both 24mm T/S, the 24L, 16-35, etc). If you compare them at f/3.5, the TS is noticeably sharper and has much less CA. That's wide open v a lens stopped down 3 stops. The same is generally true at f/4-f/11...it's just sharper across the frame because of the nature of how it works. And of course, there's the ability to do pano's, etc

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[87vr6]

If you're shooting landscape and architectural mostly, the 24 TS is by far your lens. I've used both. You're concerned about speed? Why, for your stated shooting you'll be stopped down to f/8 or so anyways. They're both sharp.

Weather? Both are sealed, the movement sections on the TS are sealed the best they can be as well.

 

[Loswr]

Different lenses for different uses. The TS-E 24mm is pretty much reserved for architectural and landscape, but can also be used for product shots (large products) in a studio setting. The TS-E lens is compatible with the Canon extenders (although aperture isn't reported properly), and the optical performance is still good.

The 24L II would be for general shooting. A wide aperture is rarely useful in landscape shooting, whereas the ability to control DoF with tilt can be very useful.

Weather? Both are sealed, the movement sections on the TS are sealed the best they can be as well.

No, the 24L II is a weather sealed lens, but the TS-E 24mm II is not sealed.

 

[hendrik-sg]

Different lenses for different uses. The TS-E 24mm is pretty much reserved for architectural and landscape, but can also be used for product shots (large products) in a studio setting. The TS-E lens is compatible with the Canon extenders (although aperture isn't reported properly), and the optical performance is still good.

The 24L II would be for general shooting. A wide aperture is rarely useful in landscape shooting, whereas the ability to control DoF with tilt can be very useful.

Weather? Both are sealed, the movement sections on the TS are sealed the best they can be as well.

No, the 24L II is a weather sealed lens, but the TS-E 24mm II is not sealed.

i use the 24 1.4 ii and the 17 TS-e so i can't compare the 24 TS-e directly but according to the tests it should be even better than the 17 TS-e.

I use the 24 1.4 for low light, but just for astro its not as good, because it produces heavy abberations and vignetting towards the borders, when the wide opening is used. In my opinion, for every use exept parties, where AF in the frame center is needed or shallow DoF the 24 TS-e is better and offeres more possibilities.

 

[G]

Thank you so much guys. I think you have leaned me towards the TS-E, it does seem to make much more sense for what I shoot. I shoot a 5D mkII and typically my 17-40L for landscapes but I'm looking for a lens with better IQ and from what I've read on TDP, other sites and from you guys, the 24mm tse makes much more sense.

 

[LostArk]

I recommend BOTH

As others have pointed out, the 24mm 1.4 is much more versatile. I would get it first unless you'd be using it heavily for architecture. This this focal length f/1.4 makes it almost as exotic as the TS-E. Both are phenomenally sharp corner-to-corner and you simply can't go wrong with either. Flip a coin! 24 TS-E will be the next lens I get.

 

[tron]

I recommend BOTH

As others have pointed out, the 24mm 1.4 is much more versatile. I would get it first unless you'd be using it heavily for architecture. This this focal length f/1.4 makes it almost as exotic as the TS-E. Both are phenomenally sharp corner-to-corner and you simply can't go wrong with either. Flip a coin! 24 TS-E will be the next lens I get.

The 24mm L f/1.4 II is not sharp corner-to-corner when fully open (used in FF cameras). You can check photozone.de. In addition it has terrible vignetting (more than 3 stops when fully open)

However I understand that there are cases where these are not much important.

 

[HarryWintergreen]

TS-E 24 II: very little CA even in high contrast situations, distortion negligible, extremely sharp; downside MF and manual exposure correction in ts-mode. I love this lens!

 

[Loswr]

TS-E 24 II: downside...MF and manual exposure correction in ts-mode.

Shooting in Live View is the way to go with a TS-E lens - makes MF easier, no exposure correction needed.

 

[Cannon Man]

I love my ts-e 24 3.5 II. I would not give that up for nothing but i did just buy a 35mm 1.4 to complement that with autofocus.

 

[pwp]

Both completely brilliant lenses. But if you are getting just one choose the most versatile.
That's the stellar L24mmf/1.4II.

-PW

 

[tron]

The only use where I would think of 24mm 1.4L II would be astrophotography.

Yep, I had the same thought. AF would be a non-issue for me for landscape and architectural work, as I'd be manual focusing most of the time anyway.

The 24 T/S is going to be better in every regard than the 24L, except in AF and low-light. So, if you'll use the 24L to shoot people or other scenese where you need AF a decent amount of the time, then you'd have to get that. Otherwise, I think the T/S opens up more possibilities.

This review has comparisons of all the lenses in that range (both 24mm T/S, the 24L, 16-35, etc). If you compare them at f/3.5, the TS is noticeably sharper and has much less CA. That's wide open v a lens stopped down 3 stops. The same is generally true at f/4-f/11...it's just sharper across the frame because of the nature of how it works. And of course, there's the ability to do pano's, etc

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

+1 That's why I bought the TS-E 24mm L II. I enjoy using it ever since...

 

[LostArk]

STOP THE PRESSES

 

[Bruce Photography]

I have both the 24 1.4 II and the 17 and 24 TS-E I and II. The Canon tilt shift lens are just wonderful. As a landscape guy and if I could only use one lens it probably would be the 24 TS-E II. I've added Nikon to my tool set and I can't tell you how much I miss the Canon 24 TS-E II lens and the 17. The double axis rotation mechanism on the Canon is worth its weight in gold. You only know how great this feature is when you use a Nikon and find out you have to send it to their repair shop every time you want the tilt and shift in the same plane. What a bummer. Canon did it right on these two lenses. I wonder why they haven't upgraded their other tilt shift lenses to this type of double rotation (since I don't have them, I don't know - maybe they already have it). Nikon catch UP!

 

[Kernuak]

I went through a similar decision making process last year (or at least that was when I finally bit the bullet), except that I was also considering the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8. In the end, what decided me was a trip to see the northern lights, where I needed a wider aperture. While I use my 24mm f/1.4 MkII mainly for landscapes, I have found the wider aperture to be useful on a few occasions (and will need it for a night shoot on Thursday, probably at around f/2 to get a bit more depth of field).

 

[Caps18]

STOP THE PRESSES

Is that the new 45mm TS-E?

If you already have a 17-40, and what you shoot isn't time critical, the TS-E's are a good choice. It is hard to argue against a f/1.4 though.

It helps to have straight trees in your photos. That is what I like when it comes to the TS-E. I really need to spend a week at a national park with my TS-E, a tripod, and a good book on what they can do though.

 

[tron]

I went through a similar decision making process last year (or at least that was when I finally bit the bullet), except that I was also considering the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8. In the end, what decided me was a trip to see the northern lights, where I needed a wider aperture. While I use my 24mm f/1.4 MkII mainly for landscapes, I have found the wider aperture to be useful on a few occasions (and will need it for a night shoot on Thursday, probably at around f/2 to get a bit more depth of field).

Granted you just mentioned a use I only dream of. However Northern Lights some time require not only a wider aperture but a wider focal length.

 

[Policar]

STOP THE PRESSES

So can we tell from this photo whether it offers the flexibility of the Canon TSE II or if it is limited to a switchable 90º setting like the older TSE and Nikon lenses?

Because if it's the former...I'm ordering one.