EF 24mm TS-E : Version 1 vs Version 2 and other questions

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,553
536
HI all!!

Ok, I still have GAS...and now looking to maybe get a Tilt Shift lens and eyeballing a 24mm one.

I was researching and found out there is a version 1 and a version 2.

Is there very much difference between the two? Enough for a large price difference?

I'm excited to get one to not only shoot on my trusty 5D3...but also since the circle image is large, it would be fun adapted to my gfx100, and heck....I'd have fun adapting it to ANY mirrorless camera I happen to be playing with.

I know the lens is sharp and a great performer...but not sure between the versions. While I usually wait and save to get the later versions....just curious in this case if it is worth it.

Hoping @privatebydesign in particular sees this, and that I know he uses the TS lenses a lot.

I've also hears that some people get the 17mm and use a tele converter on it...to basically get what is essentially 2-for-1 with the 17mm and then with the converter on it, approx 24mm...?

What's the thoughts on this?


Also, if you use the 24mm to shoot a panoramic with the shift function...what are the dimensions you end up with?
What about with the 17mm panos?


Off topic a little...I was watching YouTube and saw that Schneider had put out what appears to be some VERY large image circle TS lenses....a couple I think were actually made large enough to project large format or maybe medium format film image circles.

Does anyone know anything about them?

Anyway, back to canon....I've always kinda wanted to play with TS and as I've started looking I"ve run into some questions so was hoping for some advice from the pros here.

Thank you in advance,

cayenne
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,806
4,422
Hi cayenne, there is a massive difference between the TS-E 24 MkI and MkII. The MkII is much better and if you can swing it I’d recommend getting the MkII.

The main improvements are the MkII has very little CA even when shifted, which is very problematic on the MkI and sometimes not not able to be removed. The second massive improvement in the MkII was the independent rotation of the tilt and the shift functions, in the MkI the lens comes one way and that is it unless you remove screws and reset it. Although it isn’t difficult to do it isn’t designed to do it often and it can’t realistically be done in the field.

I have the 17 and use both 1.4 and 2x TC’s with it to good effect, but the 24 MkII is a much sharper lens than the 17 and in general more versatile. The shift stitched 24 gives you a horizontal 17 anyway and the stitched 17 is just too wide for most things.

I used to use the naked 17 a lot, now tastes have changed and I rarely use it without a TC, if I lost the 17 and could only buy one lens to replace it it would be the 24 MkII.

I actually have the TS-E17 and the TS-E50, with TC’s that gives me 17, 24, 34, 50, 70, and 100 T/S’s.

Horizontal shift on the TS-E24 MkII is 12mm either way, so you end up with an effective 24mm x 50mm sensor from a simple two shot horizontal shift stitch, but there are several ways to actually increase the effective sensor area more.

The best resource on the internet for tilt shift and Canon in particular is Kieth over at NorthLight Images, he actually posts here sometimes too. here is his review of the TS-E24 MkII http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-ts-e-24mm-3-5l-ii-review/ but dive deeper into his site for all things tilt and shift, from custom lens brackets to focusing when using tilt, to printable tilt tables for specific ‘J’ point distances (along with an explanation of ‘J’ Point distances)!
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,553
536
Hi cayenne, there is a massive difference between the TS-E 24 MkI and MkII. The MkII is much better and if you can swing it I’d recommend getting the MkII.

The main improvements are the MkII has very little CA even when shifted, which is very problematic on the MkI and sometimes not not able to be removed. The second massive improvement in the MkII was the independent rotation of the tilt and the shift functions, in the MkI the lens comes one way and that is it unless you remove screws and reset it. Although it isn’t difficult to do it isn’t designed to do it often and it can’t realistically be done in the field.

I have the 17 and use both 1.4 and 2x TC’s with it to good effect, but the 24 MkII is a much sharper lens than the 17 and in general more versatile. The shift stitched 24 gives you a horizontal 17 anyway and the stitched 17 is just too wide for most things.

I used to use the naked 17 a lot, now tastes have changed and I rarely use it without a TC, if I lost the 17 and could only buy one lens to replace it it would be the 24 MkII.

I actually have the TS-E17 and the TS-E50, with TC’s that gives me 17, 24, 34, 50, 70, and 100 T/S’s.

Horizontal shift on the TS-E24 MkII is 12mm either way, so you end up with an effective 24mm x 50mm sensor from a simple two shot horizontal shift stitch, but there are several ways to actually increase the effective sensor area more.

The best resource on the internet for tilt shift and Canon in particular is Kieth over at NorthLight Images, he actually posts here sometimes too. here is his review of the TS-E24 MkII http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-ts-e-24mm-3-5l-ii-review/ but dive deeper into his site for all things tilt and shift, from custom lens brackets to focusing when using tilt, to printable tilt tables for specific ‘J’ point distances (along with an explanation of ‘J’ Point distances)!
Thank you VERY much!!!

I knew you'd be a great source for this info!!

This helps me a LOT!

cayenne
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,101
1,131
Even if you don't have the money for the 24 TSE II, never ever buy the Mk.I.
Never!!!
Privatebydesign is absolutely right!
You could find used Mk. IIs for an acceptable price...
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,553
536
Even if you don't have the money for the 24 TSE II, never ever buy the Mk.I.
Never!!!
Privatebydesign is absolutely right!
You could find used Mk. IIs for an acceptable price...
Thank you for the advice!!

Very much appreciated!!

C
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,712
2,288
I have the 17 and 24 II, and I use the 17 more. I think FL choice depends a lot on subject matter. My main use for the TS-E lenses is architecture, when shooting in Europe the usually limited space around buildings/churches/etc. means the 17mm is needed. When traveling light, I take the 17 and a 1.4x TC instead of the two TS-E lenses.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,935
701
Davidson, NC
Last year I rented the 24mm and later the 17mm. I never completely got the hang of the 17mm, but think I'd find the 24mm much more useful if I bought one. I don't own a TC, not ever needing anything beyond 400 mm except for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. I'll be almost 95 when the next one comes along, so I might not need one then. And cropping the conjunction pictures worked just fine.

The 17 does not shift and tilt as much as the 24, so that compromises what might be some advantages of the former. That makes me wonder whether the 17 with a TC can really be the equivalent of the real 24, or just a more limited hack.

Making a series of pictures with my 26MP camera and the lens shifted 30 degrees all around, the stitched photo was about 87MP but with the corners not filled in. Below is a reduction of the pano with the 27mm of the woods behind my house taken from my deck about 30' above the lowest level in the shot. Seventeen pictures were stitched together.

My interiors with the 17mm were pretty bad, mainly from user inexperience. The best shots with it were taken on campus, mostly panoramas. I'll include some examples below.

IMG_2241-Pano.jpg

IMG_2728-Pano.jpg

IMG_2642-Pano.jpg

IMG_2685-Pano.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,935
701
Davidson, NC
They all lost some sharpness from reduction and JPEG conversion and then whatever happens to them in posting here. The first building shown can be photographed easily enough, but without doing a panorama or using a lens much wider than 17mm, you can't get close enough to get the whole building in without trees blocking part of the building.

I realized that my best pictures made with the 17mm were ones I could have taken with the 16–35mm zoom without tilt or shift and correcting in post if needed. I'll post two that I like. In both cases I bracketed and used ACR's HDR.

IMG_2650-HDR.jpg

IMG_2647-HDR.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,806
4,422
Hope stevelee doesn't mind but for reference inside the box is the fov without any shift. As you can see there are lots of ways of shifting to stitch and effectively increase your sensor size and fov. You can go between the shift rotation detents too so join the corners with a curve.

1618689695218.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne

Ph0t0

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 27, 2015
53
32
Cayenne hi,

I used to own. 24mm Mk I and later replaced for 24mm Mk II (and I also own the 17mm version).
Like others have statet before me.
Don"t buy 24mm MK I. It is not as sharp as the mk II and has a lot (and I mean a lot) of CA in the corners. Also the mk II gives you more options with rotation of different lens parts for tilting and shifting.
But really the main problem that I had with MK I was IQ. And for me there is really nothing as dissapointing as spending extra time making careful and slow tilt and shift adjustements just to come back home later and discover that even though you did everything right and captured the right moment, your pictures have subpar IQ because of the optical performance of your lens.
Obviously if you are thinking of getting a TS lens and investing that extra effort in shooting with such a lense, you expect the lens to deliver excelent results. And MK II will deliver that. Mk I won't (especially in this day and age when cameras have more resolution, the flaws of the mk I are that more obvious).

As for the comparison between 24mm and 17mm. I use 24mm a lot more often. It is sharper and the FOV works better for the stuff that I shoot . The 17mm is a bit to extreme for me personally when pushed to the edges. But that is just me. If you have a different shooting style the wider angle might suit your needs better. Both are nice lenses and will serve you well. Just don't get the MK I :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,935
701
Davidson, NC
Hope stevelee doesn't mind but for reference inside the box is the fov without any shift. As you can see there are lots of ways of shifting to stitch and effectively increase your sensor size and fov. You can go between the shift rotation detents too so join the corners with a curve.

View attachment 197044
Good to point out. I thought about going to my original shots to see how close you came. Then it occurred to me how you obviously determined the view. And yes, I realize that you can use intermediate rotations for the shift to get a little more usable area. This was just the second thing I did with the lens right after it arrived, so I was just trying out the concept. I tried exactly the same thing with the 17mm, but because the foliage had come out, the two pictures really are hard to compare. Maybe I should try superimposing them. Note in the lower right corner you see the corner of the rail of the deck, not too bad out of focus. And I think that may be the shadow of the lens you see on it. Getting back to this makes me waver on my decision not to buy the lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,935
701
Davidson, NC
Good to point out. I thought about going to my original shots to see how close you came. Then it occurred to me how you obviously determined the view. And yes, I realize that you can use intermediate rotations for the shift to get a little more usable area. This was just the second thing I did with the lens right after it arrived, so I was just trying out the concept. I tried exactly the same thing with the 17mm, but because the foliage had come out, the two pictures really are hard to compare. Maybe I should try superimposing them. Note in the lower right corner you see the corner of the rail of the deck, not too bad out of focus. And I think that may be the shadow of the lens you see on it. Getting back to this makes me waver on my decision not to buy the lens.
To follow up, I did align the two panoramas in Photoshop as well as I could. The difference in perspective made an exact overlay more trouble than it was worth, and the difference in foliage obscured matching tree for tree. The 17mm version did cover more area than the 24mm, but not as much difference as one would expect from a 17mm vs. 24mm lens. Maybe what I should try is to use privatebydesign's method and separate the center shot from what has been added and compare the latter.
 
<-- start Taboola -->