17 ts-e vs 24 ts-e

[Nate]

Hi all.

I want to buy the 17 or 24 ts-e, and I need some help which one to buy.

My photography besides portraits is landscape city scape architecture. I have a 5D mark III and mostly I use it when I shoot this kind of pictures the 17-40 with a Hoya ND 400 filter and a Hoya MC circular polarizer. And yeah even at f/8 f/11 is way to soft. I would like if it possible a sharpness close to my 70-200 2.8 IS II, thats why I chose this two lenses. Most of my shots are done within 20mm so, I like to shoot wide.

What I thought to buy is the 17mm, and if I need closer I will put a 1.4 TC III and if thats not enough I put it on a 7D.

My concerns are the lack of filters, the lack of hood.

Does anyone own(ed) both and tell me an opinion?

I tried to read everything what I found about tilt shift lenses but I still dont understand the following:
If I buy the 24 and I put my camera on a tripod, and I put let say a tall building in the picture, and it doesent fit in, and I would need a wider lens to cover the building, can I just tilt or shift the lens and take a few shots and than I put them in PS together as I would do with a panorama shot? Will it look exactly as it would have been taken with a 17 tse, or it will have bigger distortion?

Cheers

 

[charlesa]

I never owned the 17 TS-E, but I have used the 24 TS-E for the past 1 year for architectural photography. Many people say it is the sharpest ultrawide prime Canon make, and I believe they are right!

As regards the 24 mm TS-E II 3.5 L it comes with its own hood, and one can use filters on it, I use a Lee system with an 82 mm wideangle adapter, a 100 mm filter holder and hard GND set and 10 stop ND.

For use with buildings, you focus and set exposure in manual mode, lock it, and shift the lens to fix the converging verticals. If you want to stitch, you can take 3 images (vertical, or horizontal, or both) and stitch them afterwards.

 

[Loswr]

I tried to read everything what I found about tilt shift lenses but I still dont understand the following:
If I buy the 24 and I put my camera on a tripod, and I put let say a tall building in the picture, and it doesent fit in, and I would need a wider lens to cover the building, can I just tilt or shift the lens and take a few shots and than I put them in PS together as I would do with a panorama shot? Will it look exactly as it would have been taken with a 17 tse, or it will have bigger distortion?

If you do a two shot panorama using the shift function, you basically throw away the use of shift to correct for perspective distortion.

I shoot architecture with the 24mm II, and I like that it takes filters - I use a 10-stop ND sometimes with a CPL.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you are shooting at 17mm a lot on your 17-40mm L, that should give you your answer.

 

[JEAraman]

I have the 17 TSE and use the 1.4 Teleconverter for a close to 24mm shot.

 

[Nate]

If you are shooting at 17mm a lot on your 17-40mm L, that should give you your answer.

Yeah, I know... but I am willing to sacrifice some mm and dont get flares and be able to use filters.

By the way how badly does the 17 have flares?

 

[Cannon Man]

I have been using the ts-e24 3.5II for over one year now and i would not change it to a 17mm.

I like the look of the 24mm focal lenght much more.

 

[keithcooper]

I've both and find they suit different types of uses. If forced to pick just one, it would be the 17 with a 1.4x converter.

That loses me (a bit of) the superb sharpness all over the image circle of the 24mm.

The 17mm does take a bit more work to make effective use of that width, but a lot depends on what you shoot - the lack of filter is irrelevant for me, but might be an issue for others.

I've some examples of stitching from when I first got the lenses at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/lenses/ts-e_24_f35_l_ii.html

There are links to other T/S lens items from that page..

 

[acoll123]

I only have the 17 and use if for a variety of things. For me, I could do both landscapes and interior architectural shots with the 17. You can also do landscapes with the 24 (might be slightly better for this) but in tighter spaces, you will be forced to stitch 2 or more photos together with the 24. Also, I am waiting on the new 24-70 II and didn't want the overlap with 2 24s. . . .

 

[Nate]

Ok,
So far
Advantage to 24 tse II:
-Lens hood
-Filters
-Better IQ

Advantage to 17 tse
-17 which I use more often

How bad is the flare of the 17mm?
If you shoot and the sun is 70-90 degrees compared to the lens (barely out of your frame) do I get huge flares?

 

[sparda79]

You can modify a bit to use filters
http://digidaan.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/polariser-on-17mm-tiltshift/

 

[dafrank]

A few things that might be of interest to you.

If you had ever used a view camera, you would know that, shiifting the image was almost always done with the camera back, not the front (as with TSE lenses), because front shifting, even that done in the perfectly parallel way that the TSE operates, in effect, subtly tilts the image plane, so that you must compensate in post if you want to use front shift to stitch two or more images together. Granted, the amount you have to work in post varies and is rarely a huge amount. But, front-shifted images will never stitch properly without some image manipulation. If you use grip equipment to hold the camera and lens in place by grasping the lens, rather than the camera body, then, relative to the image you are shooting, when you shift the TSE lens, you will actually be shifting the body (camera "back"), rather than the lens (camera "front") itself, thereby eliminating the problem and making stitching in post completely idiot-proof. All of this is to say that, if you use the 24mm to stitch two or more images together in place of using the 17mm, you can simulate the 17mm to a degree, but be aware that you may want to buy some exttra grip gear to make that process easier and faster. Furthermore, be aware that, depending on the camera orientation when shifting for stitch, you may reproduce the general angle of view of the 17mm, but not the same format shape. Finally, you can always use the same stitching techniques with the 17mm, so that you could create a still wider angle image that would still not be reproducable with the 24mm using the same technique. Taking all of this into account, the 17mm is a better choice if you often need a lens wider than 24mm for your work.

As to filtering the lenses, of course the 24mm is the obvious choice. For very long exposures with the 17mm, if only the effect of graduated ND's is required, one can use a black card to variably dodge a lighter portion of the top of the image area, by rapidly waving the card in and out of the optical path of the lens in front of the camera. This technique requires practice, but works just fine, if the exposure is at least a few seconds long. The same technique, but using one or more stationary black cards or manufactured cloth gobos (flags, fingers dots, etc.) mounted on stands in front of the camera, can be used to cut off light which would otherwise shine directly on the lens, thereby taking the place of a really good lens shade. For other filtering uses, expensive large and cumbersome adapters are, or will be, availbale for the 17mm, but the cost, and the cost of the then necessary very large filters, will be very high.

Good luck and happy shooting.

Regards,
David

 

[Nate]

A few things that might be of interest to you.

If you had ever used a view camera, you would know that, shiifting the image was almost always done with the camera back, not the front (as with TSE lenses), because front shifting, even that done in the perfectly parallel way that the TSE operates, in effect, subtly tilts the image plane, so that you must compensate in post if you want to use front shift to stitch two or more images together. Granted, the amount you have to work in post varies and is rarely a huge amount. But, front-shifted images will never stitch properly without some image manipulation. If you use grip equipment to hold the camera and lens in place by grasping the lens, rather than the camera body, then, relative to the image you are shooting, when you shift the TSE lens, you will actually be shifting the body (camera "back"), rather than the lens (camera "front") itself, thereby eliminating the problem and making stitching in post completely idiot-proof. All of this is to say that, if you use the 24mm to stitch two or more images together in place of using the 17mm, you can simulate the 17mm to a degree, but be aware that you may want to buy some exttra grip gear to make that process easier and faster. Furthermore, be aware that, depending on the camera orientation when shifting for stitch, you may reproduce the general angle of view of the 17mm, but not the same format shape. Finally, you can always use the same stitching techniques with the 17mm, so that you could create a still wider angle image that would still not be reproducable with the 24mm using the same technique. Taking all of this into account, the 17mm is a better choice if you often need a lens wider than 24mm for your work.

Thank you David.

This is what you was revering to?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3055.0;attach=18537;image

 

[dafrank]

Yes, this is one solution, but, as with a couple of others like it, it is very expensive. If you want to save some cash, there are a few commercial solutions that are a little cheaper (I think RRS has something like this, out of two separate contraptions), or, for even less, just improvise something from the Matthews grip equipment catalogue which may or may not also require a few extra non-photo-purposed parts to be thrown in as well.

Again, good luck.

Regards,
David

 

[Nate]

Yes, this is one solution, but, as with a couple of others like it, it is very expensive. If you want to save some cash, there are a few commercial solutions that are a little cheaper (I think RRS has something like this, out of two separate contraptions), or, for even less, just improvise something from the Matthews grip equipment catalogue which may or may not also require a few extra non-photo-purposed parts to be thrown in as well.

Again, good luck.

Regards,
David

Please can you link me those sites because I didnt exactly find what you said.

Thank you!

 

[peederj]

If the sun is out of your frame and you are worried about flare, reach up with your hand and shade the lens from the sun, verifying your hand isn't in the shot. Voila.

Flare right now has gotten hip along with vignetting and grain and all the other old-school artifacts.

If you do architectural photography for a living you of course ought to get both of those fine lenses. The 17 is probably my next big EF purchase, I don't have the 24, and I don't do architectural photography for a living.

 

[dafrank]

Please can you link me those sites because I didnt exactly find what you said.

Thank you!
[/quote]

As to other expensive choices, there's: Hartblei's solution at http://hcam.de/en/canon-tse-collar.htm . RRS is Really Right Stuff, and although I don't know the specific parts, I think you can cobble a few of their items together to do the same things: http://reallyrightstuff.com/Index.aspx?code=46&key=fr . As to Matthews, they are a very old and reputable maker of studio stands and grip equipment, probably the most favored in the higher end of the industry, and I don't know exactly what they have that might work, but they've got a lot; just to let you know that their online site may or may not have every item they sell from their enormous collection that might exist in their paper catalog, but here's tyheir URL: http://www.msegrip.com/product.html .

Regards,
David

 

[Nate]

Thank you guys for the helping!

So far I am processing this info, and I am looking for alternatives.

Please fell free to continue this post with further more information.