Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?

[Dylan777]

Hi guys,
I'm interested in this Canon17mm tilt-shift and would like to have your feedbacks.

Sharpness, contrast, color, Vs 16-35 II....etc

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+17mm+tilt&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

Thanks
Dylan

 

[Loswr]

The 16-35 II is a convenient UWA zoom. The TS-E 17mm is one of the best 2-3 ultrawide lenses in terms of optical quality, and when you add in the movements it's an amazing lens.

 

[Drizzt321]

The 16-35 II is a convenient UWA zoom. The TS-E 17mm is one of the best 2-3 ultrawide lenses in terms of optical quality, and when you add in the movements it's an amazing lens.

I don't really see any of the TS-E lenses (I've used the TS-E 24mm v2) as a general use lens. On the other hand, with UWA, it's got a pretty big DoF if the subjects are standing a bit away from you.

Like Neuro says, for general convenience, go for the 16-35 v2 (or if you know you're going to be stopped down a lot, and want to save money, the 17-40), but if you want top optical quality, the 17 TS-E is fantastic. Although for doing the tilt & shift you'll probably want a quality tripod to put it on.

 

[Random Orbits]

Not suited for run and gun type photos, but it comes into its own using LiveView. Shift can be done handheld, tilting to give the illusion of greater DOF is much harder handheld.

IQ-wise, it's much better than 16-35 II. The Zeiss 15 is a little sharper and can take filters, but the TS-E 17's movements extends its versatility greatly. If you're looking for a travel lens, the 16-35 II is more suitable, but if you have the time to get the shot with proper support, then the 17 is hard to beat.

 

[deleteme]

What do you want to use it for?

I bought one the moment it was released and it has delighted me ever since.
I am a full time architectural photographer and I cannot imagine life without it.

The difference in the quality of my images in terms of sharpness and contrast is dramatic and my clients commented on that. They also noted the boss new lens when on location.

But it does lack flexibility in general photography. It is MF and I use it in Live View on tripod exclusively.
FWIW, I recently acquired the 14 Rokinon and it has started accompanying me on my building shoots. As you know it is crazy sharp and I get fabulously snappy images out of it.

I tend to use it for casual shooting and it is fun but almost ridiculously wide.

 

[surapon]

Hi guys,
I'm interested in this Canon17mm tilt-shift and would like to have your feedbacks.

Sharpness, contrast, color, Vs 16-35 II....etc

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+17mm+tilt&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

Thanks
Dylan

Dear Friend, Mr. Dylan.
Sorry, I do not have TS-E 17 mm, But I love my Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II so much, and Stay on my 5D MK II at 85% for my typical Landscape/ Building photography in every day, Yes, I use with my EOS-M too---Just for FUN.
Only thing that TS-E ( Canon) do not have = Auto Focus function, But every thing else = A++ for perfected Picture.
Good Luck.
Surapon

 

[David_in_Seattle]

I have both the Canon 16-35 f2.8 v2 and TSE 17mm.

To be frank, they have entirely different use cases. With it's fast aperture and wide zoom, the 16-35 works well in low light situations where you need a wide angle lens for a specific shot. Yes, I've used it for landscapes, but at f2.8 it's not tack sharp and stopping down to f8 or f16 will bring you IQ that's relatively on par with the much less expensive 17-40mm f4. Plus at 16mm there's quite a bit of distortion weighted at the center of the frame.

The TSE 17mm is a landscape/architecture photographer's dream lens. Though to utilize the tilt shift you'll always need to use the lens on a tripod because any minor shift in angle will drastically change your focus and plane of view. If you've never used a tilt shift lens, then I recommend renting one for a solid week. It took me 3 full days to really get the hang of it before I could rely on it for paid gigs, but ultimately it's one of those lenses that will differentiate your photos from the rest of the pack. It's one of the sharpest lenses at this focal length and you can essentially get rid of most distortion - or accentuate it if desired. One thing to consider is the TSE 17mm cannot use traditional filters because of it's bulbous front element. The included hood is essentially a protector, but must be removed to use the lens. Lee makes a filter adapter that will work for adding ND, polarizers, and GNDs. But none of them will provide any good protection for the front element.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks for your feedbacks gent's.

Prior writing this topic, the only thing that make me think twice is non AF. This could be a huge issue for me. My current 16-35 II is fine when shooting at smaller apertures f11 or smaller. However, there are times I need to shoot indoor f4 to 5.6, the IQ is quite not same.

Another Q: is there any tilt-shift with AF?

Thanks surapon for sample photos. Those tall buildings look great with tilt-shift.

 

[Drizzt321]

Thanks for your feedbacks gent's.

Prior writing this topic, the only thing that make me think twice is non AF. This could be a huge issue for me. My current 16-35 II is fine when shooting at smaller apertures f11 or smaller. However, there are times I need to shoot indoor f4 to 5.6, the IQ is quite not same.

Another Q: is there any tilt-shift with AF?

Thanks surapon for sample photos. Those tall buildings look great with tilt-shift.

Not that I'm aware of. I think part of it is it's a specialized lens, and it's specialty will very much tend to be used on a tripod and longer exposures as necessary, so AF wasn't a thought. Might actually be real engineering issues since the entire barrel needs to shift & tilt, and even rotate. If they did, it'd probably add a good bit to the cost I'd imagine, and it's already expensive enough as is.

Is the issue that you need to shoot UWA indoors, but not on a tripod where you could do a longish exposure (e.g. moving subject(s))? I guess you gotta stick with the 16-35 v2, and step back a bit so that you can crop in somewhat to remove the corners. Or just live with what you have. Honestly, I don't think you generally can shoot at f/11 indoors, unless you have a ton of light coming in, which might be common for where you shoot (certainly not where I shoot!).

 

[Loswr]

Keep in mind that the movements affect VF metering, too. Live View is the way to go with TS-E lenses.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks for your feedbacks gent's.

Prior writing this topic, the only thing that make me think twice is non AF. This could be a huge issue for me. My current 16-35 II is fine when shooting at smaller apertures f11 or smaller. However, there are times I need to shoot indoor f4 to 5.6, the IQ is quite not same.

Another Q: is there any tilt-shift with AF?

Thanks surapon for sample photos. Those tall buildings look great with tilt-shift.

Not that I'm aware of. I think part of it is it's a specialized lens, and it's specialty will very much tend to be used on a tripod and longer exposures as necessary, so AF wasn't a thought. Might actually be real engineering issues since the entire barrel needs to shift & tilt, and even rotate. If they did, it'd probably add a good bit to the cost I'd imagine, and it's already expensive enough as is.

Is the issue that you need to shoot UWA indoors, but not on a tripod where you could do a longish exposure (e.g. moving subject(s))? I guess you gotta stick with the 16-35 v2, and step back a bit so that you can crop in somewhat to remove the corners. Or just live with what you have. Honestly, I don't think you generally can shoot at f/11 indoors, unless you have a ton of light coming in, which might be common for where you shoot (certainly not where I shoot!).

I agree. 16-35 II is good for out door - f11 or smaller. I'm no expert in MF :-\

 

[privatebydesign]

As has been pointed out, manual focus is just the start, manual exposure too, and then shift and/or tilt. It takes time to use this lens to its potential and f4 isn't where it is at either, it is certainly no substitute for lack of IQ from the 16-35 from f4-f11, it is a completely different beast.

One thing to consider is the TSE 17mm cannot use traditional filters because of it's bulbous front element. The included hood is essentially a protector, but must be removed to use the lens. Lee makes a filter adapter that will work for adding ND, polarizers, and GNDs. But none of them will provide any good protection for the front element.

Look at the Fotodiox Wonderpana system, it protects the front element, takes CPL, round, and grad filters and, considering the size, is very reasonably priced.

 

[Neutral]

Canon TS-E 17 is perfect optical system in all respects.
Once I bought it I stopped using my older 16-35 II
It is easy to use, even handheld.
I used it initially with 1Dx but 1DX resolution was not enough ,so I bough Sony a7R specially to use with TS-E 17.
Together they give amost MF IQ.
Here is example of TS-E 17 on a7R with Metabone MIII adapter.
First image - is almost all frame - just a little bit of cropping.
The other two are 100% crops from different image area.

 

[mackguyver]

Neutral, that second crop is downright scary. Wow, insane detail. Very, very impressed with your work, technical skills, and the Sony+TS-E 17 combo results.

+1 on privatebydesign's comments, TS-E require a completely different style of shooting. LiveView has made it a lot easier, but it's no substitute for the 16-35 unless you're using the 16-35 like a TS (i.e. architecture and other slow, deliberate type work).

 

[Neutral]

Neutral, that second crop is downright scary. Wow, insane detail. Very, very impressed with your work, technical skills, and the Sony+TS-E 17 combo results.

+1 on privatebydesign's comments, TS-E require a completely different style of shooting. LiveView has made it a lot easier, but it's no substitute for the 16-35 unless you're using the 16-35 like a TS (i.e. architecture and other slow, deliberate type work).

Such kind of combo TS-E 17+ Sony a7R combo was always my dream.
Now it became reality. Thanks both to Canon and Sony.

As for 16-35 I do not think it is really needed for anyone who already has Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 which is also perfect on both bodies.
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 is enough for most of short zoom needs, and TS-E 17 is perfect complement to that when high quality wide angle shot is required. And both work perfectly on 1DX and a7R.
Here are also some image samples of Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 on a7R and 1Dx:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20321.0

With this set EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 and TS-E 17 I really no need 16-35 any more and to my view IQ from 16-35 is far below compared with IQ from EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 and TS-E 17 even on 1Dx body let alone a7R, so I was never fully satisfied with 16-35

 

[Neutral]

Though TS-E is perfect optical system it need to be used with care.
I've seen many images with TS-E when it was not used properly.
It like working with HDR - if not use carefully than it easy to overcook.
Some people are overcooking prospective correction with lens shift and make vertical lines on image strictly vertical and parallel to the picture sides and this breaks overall image prospective - image does not look natural - as if turned upside down.
When you look at the image upper side looks bigger than down side though they are equal .
This is optical illusion because our mind uses it's own prospective correction .
So it is important always to leave some prospective proportions on the image and do not do it fully square

 

[Eldar]

Most seem to be said already, so all I can do is confirm some of the earlier posts. The 17 TS-E is optically and mechanically a phenomenal lens. But in my view, you buy it for the tilt&shift functionality and on a tripod. It is clearly useable handheld also, but to make it work handheld with tilt and/or shift requires a lot of practice. My use is 99% on a tripod.

There are filter options available, but to me it is too cumbersome, so I shoot it as it comes. I have a 15mm Zeiss, for which I bought the (frightfully expensive) CPL. And if a more standard UWA lens is what you want, I can definitely recommend that. Other alternative is the 21 or 18mm Zeiss lenses.

I also agree with he who pointed out that if you have a good UWA prime and the 24-70 II, you don´t need the 16-35 II. I actually sold mine, with no regrets. It is good stopped down, but full of flaws shot wide open (which is what I normally do).

But if you take the time it takes to master the 17 TS-E, it will give you lots of joy!