After post-production software, is the TS-E 17mm still a valuable resource?

[antonioleandro]

Folks,

As the post-production software gets better day after day, do you consider the TS-E 17mm a valuable resorce for architecture photography or are you satisfied with tilt corrections in post?

 

[Aichbus]

I own it but rarely use it. I prefer my Sigma 12-24 Art, as it gives me a larger angle of view if I need that (especially for interiors), the convenience of a zoom, the convenience of autofocus and if I need shifting, I level the camera horizontally in portrait format and crop the bottom part. Since I am using a 5DsR, the resulting cropped images is good enough. This way I get more square images then if I used the 17 TS-E, but I kind of like that. As I own the TS-E 17 mm, I take it with me if I know I have to shoot architecture, but the 12-24 Art is always in my kit and serves many purposes. I don't think I'd buy the TS-E 17 mm anymore, unless I were really specialized in architecture photography, which I am not. BTW: The artistic "Tilt" effect doesn't interest me at all.

 

[privatebydesign]

Folks,

As the post-production software gets better day after day, do you consider the TS-E 17mm a valuable resorce for architecture photography or are you satisfied with tilt corrections in post?

You can’t make tilt corrections in post, you can make shift corrections. It depends on your output and technique but in general I find I use the 11-24 and crop now more than I use the TS-E17 for architectural/mid range real estate work for developers, I don’t do MLS listings.

But tilt can’t be post processed and nothing beats the control of the plane of focus for dof control, though tilt is of comparatively modest use in most architectural imaging.

 

[stevelee]

Does anybody have any thoughts and experience to share about the 17mm vs. the 24mm?

I'm planning to rent one for a week to play around with, some time when not much else is going on. My guess would be that the 24mm would be more useful generally.

 

[privatebydesign]

Does anybody have any thoughts and experience to share about the 17mm vs. the 24mm?

I'm planning to rent one for a week to play around with, some time when not much else is going on. My guess would be that the 24mm would be more useful generally.

You know if you need the 17 fov, otherwise the 24 is a 'better' lens in every respect. You can more often than not, when using TS-E lenses as they are intended, get the fov of the 17 by stitching 2 24mm shots too...

 

[Zeidora]

Agree on focal plane placement with tilt. Re 17 vs. 24, the 24 is easier to use, particularly if you want to add filters.

 

[Loswr]

Does anybody have any thoughts and experience to share about the 17mm vs. the 24mm?

I'm planning to rent one for a week to play around with, some time when not much else is going on. My guess would be that the 24mm would be more useful generally.

Depends on what/where you want to shoot. I have both and I use the 17mm more frequently, mainly for architecture in Europe, where buildings are close. But for 'playing around', the 24 is probably the better choice. Have fun!

 

[antonioleandro]

Folks,

Thank you very much for your prompt answers.

I own it but rarely use it. I prefer my Sigma 12-24 Art, as it gives me a larger angle of view if I need that (especially for interiors), the convenience of a zoom, the convenience of autofocus and if I need shifting, I level the camera horizontally in portrait format and crop the bottom part. Since I am using a 5DsR, the resulting cropped images is good enough. This way I get more square images then if I used the 17 TS-E, but I kind of like that. As I own the TS-E 17 mm, I take it with me if I know I have to shoot architecture, but the 12-24 Art is always in my kit and serves many purposes. I don't think I'd buy the TS-E 17 mm anymore, unless I were really specialized in architecture photography, which I am not. BTW: The artistic "Tilt" effect doesn't interest me at all.

@Aichbus
You might have the answer to my questions. I have always coveted the TS-E 17mm. I am very fond of architecture photography and one of my projects involves making pictures of historical two-story buildings in narrow streets, so I always thought the TS-E lens would be the solution to my problems. A few years ago, I bought the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II and it sort of solved my problems, I would use the camera on portrait position, level it horizontally, make the shot and crop the lower part of the image. I have even used sites which calculated the equivalent field of view of the TS-E 17mm completely shifted and it would be equivalent of an 11mm lens, so I thought that would be close. Now I have been offered a TS-E 17mm f/4L for a good price and I am wondering, should I buy it? Do you find yourself in any situation which would make you use the TS-E instead of the 12-24mm?

BTW: I made a mistake. I wanted to say shift effect and wrote tilt in error.

You can’t make tilt corrections in post, you can make shift corrections. It depends on your output and technique but in general I find I use the 11-24 and crop now more than I use the TS-E17 for architectural/mid range real estate work for developers, I don’t do MLS listings.

But tilt can’t be post processed and nothing beats the control of the plane of focus for dof control, though tilt is of comparatively modest use in most architectural imaging.

@ privatebydesign

I meant shift, but wrote tilt. My mistake. Are you satisfied with your pictures of tall buildings with the 11-24mm? Do you think that there is any difference in perspective or any other image factor comparing the 11-24mm@11mm with the TS-E shifted?

Depends on what/where you want to shoot. I have both and I use the 17mm more frequently, mainly for architecture in Europe, where buildings are close. But for 'playing around', the 24 is probably the better choice. Have fun!

@neuro

Looking at your gear list @TDP, I noticed you own the 11-24mm. How do you compare this lens with the TS-E 17mm for architecture?

 

[Don Haines]

As someone who grew up with 4X5 cameras, there is no substitute for tilt/shift. You are not just making lines parallel, you are shifting the plane of focus.... you can’t do that in software from a single image.....

 

[Loswr]

Looking at your gear list @TDP, I noticed you own the 11-24mm. How do you compare this lens with the TS-E 17mm for architecture?

Depends on the situation. In fact, the lens that has 'suffered' since I got the 11-24L is the TS-E 24L II. I typically travel with my camera gear in a Lowerpro DSLR Video Fastpack 250, which has a laptop compartment that holds my 15" MBP and iPad, a camera compartment that holds the 1D X, EOS M6 + M11-22, and three 'standard' lenses. Previously, that was the 24-70/2.8L II, TS-E 17L, and TS-E 24L II, but now I typically bring the 11-24L instead of the 24mm tilt-shift. The bag also has a 'personal items top compartment that holds (among a few other things) the WonderPana 145 holder, 10-stop ND and CPL for the TS-E 17L, which I bring if I'll be out shooting in the daytime. The TS-E 17 offers easier filter solutions than the 11-24L (obviously, the TS-E 24 is even easier since it shares filters with the 24-70/2.8 II, but 24mm isn't usually wide enough in Europe).

As to how the two lenses stack up against each other, I tend to use the 11-24L only when the TS-E 17 isn't wide enough. Part of that is a cropping limitation – if I had the 50 MP of the 5Ds instead of the 18 MP of the 1D X, I might shoot level at 11mm and crop. But, there are also occasions when I want to use both tilt and shift, such as the following example, where I had the camera as close as possible to the middle gate of the town hall in Basel, Switzerland, with downward shift to in effect move the camera even closer, and tilt applied to get the entire vertical height of the building in focus.

"Rathaus Basel"

EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 30 s, f/11, ISO 100

 

[Aichbus]

@Aichbus
You might have the answer to my questions. I have always coveted the TS-E 17mm. I am very fond of architecture photography and one of my projects involves making pictures of historical two-story buildings in narrow streets, so I always thought the TS-E lens would be the solution to my problems. A few years ago, I bought the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II and it sort of solved my problems, I would use the camera on portrait position, level it horizontally, make the shot and crop the lower part of the image. I have even used sites which calculated the equivalent field of view of the TS-E 17mm completely shifted and it would be equivalent of an 11mm lens, so I thought that would be close. Now I have been offered a TS-E 17mm f/4L for a good price and I am wondering, should I buy it? Do you find yourself in any situation which would make you use the TS-E instead of the 12-24mm?

BTW: I made a mistake. I wanted to say shift effect and wrote tilt in error.

To answer your question, whether I find myself in any situation which would make me use the TS-E instead of the 12-24: Those situation are very rare. Obviously there is the advantage of tilting of the TS-E. But since 17 mm provide already a large depth of field, you hardly need that feature. Some folks use the tilting to achieve the opposite, the miniature effect, but as I already pointed out, I don't like that so I don't need that. The TS-E has one more advantage over the 12-24 Sigma: It has less field curvature. With the Sigma 12-24, even at f8, it happens that if you focus on the center of the frame, the borders are a very tiny bit less sharp as they could be. Imagine you want to photograph a church and you want straight lines. You use your camera in portrait mode, so the center of the frame aims at the entrance of the church. If you focus on that, the clock on the tower is less sharp as if you focus on the clock. But if you focus on the clock, the doors of the entrance are less sharp. So I have come to the conclusion that focusing on a point between doors and clock gives the best results. I guess with the Canon 11-24 you don't have that problem. But it is a minor problem and only visible if you pixelpeep 50 Megapixel images. The TS-E 17 is better in this regard, however, when you use the complete shift-range, borders are noticably softer.

To sum it up, I only take the TS-E along, if I know I might need it. For general travel photography, I always take the 12-24 and i hardly ever regret not having brought the TS-E. Because of manual focus and the shift-settings, it takes much longer to take a decent photo with the TS-E than with the 12-24. This is not an issue if you make architectural photos for money, but if you travel with your wife and she always has to wait for you to take a photo, then the TS-E is NO OPTION!

And one more thing to consider: 12 mm is soo much wider than 17 mm. The Sigma (or the Canon 11-24 for that matter) lets you photograph things that you cannot with the 17 mm. For instance indooor shots like the handheld shot of Paris metro tunnels attached.

 

[antonioleandro]

@ Neuroanatomist

That´s a great picture. Congratulations!

@ Aichbus

Manual focus is something that worries me about the TS-E. Although it might have a large depth of field as it is a wide angle lens, specially when stopped down, I am always worried about nailing focus.

I probably would not use it for casual travel photography, it would be used for personal photo projects which are more serious than casual photography, but have not brought me any money (yet) (I am a psychiatrist, but I have a deep interest in photography, which I have been practicing for the last 22 years).

I have developed a strategy regarding travel photography, I taught photography to my wife, so when we travel, she also brings a camera (and complains if I do not bring good lenses for her), but I think that waiting for setting up a tilt-shift lens would be too much even for her.

@ Everybody

Do you think that shooting with a 12-24mm lens @ 12mm would make any effect to the image regarding proportions of a tall building in front of the camera which would not happen (or be mitigated) if I used a 17mm lens?

 

[sanj]

@ Neuroanatomist

That´s a great picture. Congratulations!

@ Aichbus

Manual focus is something that worries me about the TS-E. Although it might have a large depth of field as it is a wide angle lens, specially when stopped down, I am always worried about nailing focus.

I probably would not use it for casual travel photography, it would be used for personal photo projects which are more serious than casual photography, but have not brought me any money (yet) (I am a psychiatrist, but I have a deep interest in photography, which I have been practicing for the last 22 years).

I have developed a strategy regarding travel photography, I taught photography to my wife, so when we travel, she also brings a camera (and complains if I do not bring good lenses for her), but I think that waiting for setting up a tilt-shift lens would be too much even for her.

@ Everybody

Do you think that shooting with a 12-24mm lens @ 12mm would make any effect to the image regarding proportions of a tall building in front of the camera which would not happen (or be mitigated) if I used a 17mm lens?

Sir. Your enthusiasm for photography is nice. Pls do not worry about manual focus on tilt shift 17mm:
1. You will be using it on tripod mostly.
2. You will use f8 and smaller mostly while doing landscapes.
3. You will use live view to see tilt shift effect and can easily electronically zoom and mark focus.

My comments are for generic tilt shift photography, there are other uses as well. For general travel photography a tilt shift is a waste of energy and might actually take the joy away. 12-24 auto focus lens will get you more joy. You can easily use software to fix perspective. This is my perspective.

 

[Aichbus]

@ Everybody

Do you think that shooting with a 12-24mm lens @ 12mm would make any effect to the image regarding proportions of a tall building in front of the camera which would not happen (or be mitigated) if I used a 17mm lens?

There is optical distortion (barrel or cushion, for wideangle lenses it is mostly the barrel type) and perspective distortion. Optical distortion on the TS-E 17 mm is negligable, on the 12-24 it is well controlled but visible at 12 mm and practically non-existent at around 18 mm. At any rate it can be removed during post-processing.

You are talking about perspective distortion. I would say it is the same for the TS-E when not shifted compared to the 12-24 at 17 mm. And it should be in the same order for the TS-E when maximally shifted vs. the 12-24 at 12 mm. Being too close to large buildings and maximally shift on the TS-E 17 mm might result in straight lines, but oftentimes the resulting perspective distortion is soo bad that you would find yourself preferrring converging vertical lines over straight lines. Remember that on an ultra wide angle lens, object distances on the subject are not equal whether they are in the center of the image or at the corner. At the corner, they can be twice as large. Depending on your subject that can look very weird. Also remember, when you stand at a short distance in front of a large building, you look up and see converging lines yourself. So this is the NORMAL view. You cannot shift the lens in your eye. So if you overdo shifting with a tilt/shift lens you are creating an unnatural look.

 

[symmar22]

As an interior and architecture photographer, my experience differs, I simply couldn't live without my TS-E collection. Every time I try to use my 16-35 instead (especially indoors) I am stuck with either too much floor or ceiling, the shift is useful as well to adjust the composition in relation with the elements in the frame. Sometimes I need a focal in between 17 and 24 and the zoom does it, but the TS-Es make my life much easier.

Optically speaking, both 17 an 24 are excellent. With the 17mm, be careful with flare when you face the light (that's my main complain about it) but it can be really annoying, the 24 is a bit sharper but to it doesn't really matter in real life, it main drawback IMO is the yellow / blue color fringing that can be difficult to remove completely in post.

With super wides, it is difficult to compose an interesting image; showing everything is not what I call a composition, so I would start to rent the 24mm for a try period.

Finally think as TS-Es as "tripod" lenses. Yes they can be used handheld, but critical focusing (specially with the 17mm) is difficult and better achieved on a steady image with live view. If used for architecture, you'll need time to "study your frame" and adjust the levels perfectly, and be able to use smaller F-stops and slow speeds.

Personally, I never take them for traveling, unless I am ready to carry also at least my small tripod.

Finally do not forget the golden rule with architecture photography : use a lens as long as you CAN and as short a you NEED.

Have fun with your experiments.