TS-E 17mm or 24mm

[romanr74]

I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...

 

[jdramirez]

I don't understand the draw of a tilt shift. I like the results, but not enough to throw down a thousand bucks. I'm replying because I'm hoping to get some in sight on the why.

 

[Random Orbits]

I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...

If you get the 17mm, you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm. It won't be as sharp, but you still get the advantages of the movements.

 

[pierceography]

I'm planning on getting a TS lens in the next month or two, and will likely go for the 24mm over the 17. My reasoning is that on a FF camera, I find the 24mm focal length to be more usable. While 17mm is pretty wide, it's almost too wide for my tastes.

But it really depends on what you're shooting. If you're outdoors and have the ability to zoom with your feet (walk), then I would think 24mm would be more usable. However, if you're doing mostly interior work where space is tight, 17mm would be more ideal.

But as with most things photography, it's entirely based on what (how) you shoot.

 

[MarkII]

Well, you should choose based on what focal length you want to use...

Generally, the TS-E 17mm is not a good walk around lens. The bulbous front means that you need to keep the lens cap attached any time you are not actively taking a picture. Shooting anywhere where where there are dense moving crowds may also be a bit harrowing. Fitting filters is a pain (ie not officially supported). OTOH - its a 17mm tilt-shift lens.

The 24mm is much more practical from a mechanical perspective and takes ordinary filters. One thing I find with the 17mm is that the tilt adjustment is not terribly useful - everything is usually in focus unless the subject is practically on the lens. With the 24mm you get more DOF control if that's what you are looking for.

If you are prepared to take your time (and possibly a tripod - though for perspective correction alone and even shift-panoramas you can shoot pretty well hand held), either lens is a good choice. Either lens is significantly better than the 16-35mm for sharpness and the tilt-shift function - provided the focal length is right.

 

[RGF]

I had both and glad I sold the 17. Too wide and there really is not much to gain the tilting it for DOF. 17 is so wide that nearly everything is in focus. With the shift, I can control most of this in PS and new LR ACR. As far as pans go, seldom shoot pans with 17.

 

[myocyte]

I was in a similar position, and I've rented both the 17 mm and 24 mm TS-E lenses. Although the 17mm gives some great perspective and is sharp corner-to-corner, I was not a huge fan of that bulbous element. Also, not being able to use screw-on filters was a major downside for me. The 24mm also worked quite well as a general walk around lens with my family, even if I had to rely on focus confirmation. So, I could take some landscape/architectural shots, and while walking around, still take family photos @ 24mm. The 17mm was purely for architecture/landscape with much less flexibility. For a family vacation, I would opt for the 24mm for its versatility.

I still have the 24mm TS-E on my to-buy list, but like a previous poster said, I'm also having trouble convincing myself that it's worth the $2k (granted the shift function was a great feature to have). Instead, I ended up dropping my photo budget on a HDSLR rig in hopes that I could be the next Tarantino with my family home videos (unfortunately, my videos will probably still be horrible).

 

[RGF]

when I want to go really wide, I use my 14. Great lens.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I was in a similar position, and I've rented both the 17 mm and 24 mm TS-E lenses.

If you're not sure which to get, then this is the right answer: rent both.

I love the 24. Whenever I can think of an excuse to use it instead of some other lens, I do. And it takes the 1.4x TC just brilliantly, giving you an awesome 35(ish) lens as well.

I'm personally not drawn to the 17mm perspective anywhere near as much as I am to the 24mm perspective. And when I do want something as staggeringly wide as the 17 would give, I'm generally not going to be satisfied with a mere 17mm lens and I'm instead reaching for the 8-15. But that's just me.

Oh, it, of course, depends a great deal which format you're shooting with. I shoot 135 ("full frame") exclusively. If I shot APS-C ("crop"), I'd be all over the 17 instead of the 24.

Also worth considering is the third-party alternatives. I don't really remember who's selling what, but I do know that somebody's got something new for a fair bit less that still has the independent movements of the Version II lenses. I also understand that the image quality from said lens is supposed to be quite respectable, even if it's not quite as good as the Canon. In other words, it's probably a much better priceerformance ratio still with very good performance.

Cheers,

b&

 

[kirispupis]

I had both and took both last August to Tuscany - including the places you mention. The primary purpose of a TS lens is keeping your verticals straight. In architecture for most shots if your verticals are not straight, then others will not bother looking at your work. They're really a basic necessity type of thing. Some may argue that you can do this in PP, but that is not true - the perspective will be different.

IMHO it's not really a one or the other proposition. I found both necessary but if I had to take only one I would take the 24 because 17 is often too wide and it has more problems with flare.

I posted a thread here recently with examples from Tuscany with these lenses - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13128.0;topicseen

 

[art_d]

I don't understand the draw of a tilt shift. I like the results, but not enough to throw down a thousand bucks. I'm replying because I'm hoping to get some in sight on the why.

A big draw is the ability to shift which lets you keep the camera level while composing shots, which keeps vertical lines running straight. This is useful anytime you have a vertical element in the composition (a building, a lampost, a tree, etc.) that you don't want to have appear like it's falling backward (which happens if you point the camera up) or forward (if you point the camera down).

For example:

This photo was made with a 17mm TS-E at maximum shift. If this had been a regular lens and the camera was kept level, the horizon would've been in the middle of the frame. Most of the bottom of the frame would've been filled with foreground and a good portion of the building would've been cut off at top. If the camera had been tilted back to capture the entire height of the building, the building would suffer from keystoning, with the vertical lines not running straight.

As to the question of 17 vs 24...that has a lot to do with shooting style. I find the 24 generally more practical in more circumstances because 17mm is kind of an exterme focal length. But if that's the kind of shooting you're into, it's a fantastic lens.

 

[art_d]

I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...

If you get the 17mm, you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm. It won't be as sharp, but you still get the advantages of the movements.

This is true...although also be aware that a TC will add a slight bit of barrel distortion. May not be an issue in most circumstances, but it can become evident in some architectural shots.

 

[romanr74]

I had both and took both last August to Tuscany - including the places you mention. The primary purpose of a TS lens is keeping your verticals straight. In architecture for most shots if your verticals are not straight, then others will not bother looking at your work. They're really a basic necessity type of thing. Some may argue that you can do this in PP, but that is not true - the perspective will be different.

IMHO it's not really a one or the other proposition. I found both necessary but if I had to take only one I would take the 24 because 17 is often too wide and it has more problems with flare.

I posted a thread here recently with examples from Tuscany with these lenses - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13128.0;topicseen

Very helpful pictures - thank you!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

For example:

This is the textbook example of what the TS-E 17 is designed for: close-up photos of tall buildings.

Of course, that's not all it can do, and it's not all it can do really, really, well. But it's basically its primary purpose.

If you're thinking of doing this sort of thing -- or of similar sorts of close-up shots of very big things (including mountains and trees) where you don't want any geometric distortion -- then this is the lens for you. If you have other types of photography in mind, this probably isn't the lens for you.

Cheers,

b&

 

[romanr74]

For example:

This is the textbook example of what the TS-E 17 is designed for: close-up photos of tall buildings.

Of course, that's not all it can do, and it's not all it can do really, really, well. But it's basically its primary purpose.

If you're thinking of doing this sort of thing -- or of similar sorts of close-up shots of very big things (including mountains and trees) where you don't want any geometric distortion -- then this is the lens for you. If you have other types of photography in mind, this probably isn't the lens for you.

Cheers,

b&

I've checked my metadata and 50% of my pictures shot with the 16-35 are at the very wide end. I've added a few examples which I believe work nicely. I have not added examples which do not work because of falling lines. What I obviously try to do is frame at 16mm thus that the falling lines are as limited as possible. With the 16-35 this can lead to mediocre results due to corner unsharpness (see picture 8814 showing the limits of this 'technique'). Not all of these picutres are potential TS-E candidates, of course. Picture 3938 for example surely isnt... Again, all pictures at 16mm

 

[TrumpetPower!]

For somebody who uses 16mm as often as you do get the 17TS-E. If you want a bit more flexibility with minimal loss in IQ then get a 1.4TC MkIII.

+1

You've done a superlative job working around the limitations of the 16-35, but there isn't a shot amongst those you posted that I personally wouldn't have gone with the TS-E 17 if I had a choice between the two. Now that I've seen what you're drawn to, it seems pretty clear that the 17 is for you, in spades.

Cheers,

b&

 

[jonsjons]

So is selective focus a viable possibility with the tilt adjustment of either the 17 or 24mm? I always loved tilting the front standard on 4x5s....and hoped maybe I could do achieve something similar with these lenses (particularly the 17mm as I love ultrawides) but it sounds like depth of field may be so deep that this won't really be possible.

 

[privatebydesign]

So is selective focus a viable possibility with the tilt adjustment of either the 17 or 24mm? I always loved tilting the front standard on 4x5s....and hoped maybe I could do achieve something similar with these lenses (particularly the 17mm as I love ultrawides) but it sounds like depth of field may be so deep that this won't really be possible.

Reverse tilt is very effective with the 17mm TS-E.

 

[shutterwideshut]

I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...

I like the 17mm focal length but then again, I'm a very big fan of filters and the 17mm TS-E can not fit any filters unless otherwise you do some DIY filter holder. If you like to use filters, then the 24mm TS-E II is the way to go.

 

[shutterwideshut]

I don't understand the draw of a tilt shift. I like the results, but not enough to throw down a thousand bucks. I'm replying because I'm hoping to get some in sight on the why.

Slow
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Lee Big Stopper ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 20s ı f/11 ı ISO 100

Slow by shutterwideshut on Flickr

A Cloudy Day
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Lee Big Stopper ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 60s ı f/16 ı ISO 100

A Cloudy Day by shutterwideshut on Flickr

By tilting, you can achieve a deep DOF from front to back and by shifting, you can overcome the keystone effect/converging verticals. These images were both done using both the tilt and shift method.