TS-E 24mm f3.5LII vs TS-E 45mm f2.8

[willrobb]

My next purchase is going to be a TS-E lens and I'm debating between two, the 24mm f3.5L II and the 45mm f2.8. I've never used TS-E lenses and I'd appreciate some people's thoughts.

I already have:
5DmkII
7D
17-40mm f4L
24-70mm 2.8L
50mm f1.2L
100mm f2.8L macro IS
70-200mm f2.8L
580EX speedlite
580EX II speedlite

I work freelance, shoot for magazines, guidebooks and increasingly more and more weddings and portraits in the private sector. I basically have most of my bases covered, but could do with a TS-E lens to add something else into my repetoire. Originally I was thinking more about a 45mm TS-E lens to help make creative portraits, but seeing as how architecture/landscape does make up a fair bit of my work I think a 24mm would be of more use there. I use L series lenses all the time as I need something tough that's going to last me for years and that's why I am swinging towards the 24mm at the moment, but I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts to help me decide. Basically I want something that little bit different to help my portfolio stand out a little bit more and need something to cover as many bases as possible.

Any of you guys out there used these lenses for portraits/landscape/architecture? What are your thoughts?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

Will

 

[Orangutan]

Rent both to try. Then, either buy one, or keep renting as needed.

 

[arussarts]

The 24 is a GREAT lens. Much better than the previous version. The 45 is due for an upgrade to L status and I'm pretty sure I've read on CR that patents have been filed for it and that it'll be out soon, so unless you REALLY need the 45 focal length, and you're dying to drop the coin, you probably should go with the 24.

I have used the older 24 and I own the new 24 and unlike its predecessor, it is beautifully engineered. Heavy, metal, sharp, and smooth.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

If at all possible, try out a copy of either lens to see if the shift function works acceptably for you - the 17mm TS-E produces an unusual type of distortion, with the image getting more stretched in the direction of a shift, especially at max shift settings (even on APS-C, however; FF is probably better in the area opposite the direction of shift and worse at the far edge of the frame in the direction of shift). It doesn't render the images unusable and is probably unavoidable given the amount of shift available.

The 24mm is probably somewhat better than this, however. The 90mm TS-E (which is an excellent focal length on APS-C or full frame, and one of the most highly regarded Canon lenses, older or newer - though it does exhibit some CA and is a wee bit less sharp wide open) has essentially no stretching distortion when fully shifted (at least on APS-C) so I'm assuming that the effect is reduced as you move up in focal length.

 

[J. McCabe]

I would take the following points into consideration -

1. The TS-E 24mm mkII has capabilities the 45mm doesn't, reviews will give all the details.

2. AFAIK, The TS-E lenses are compatible with with extenders, so TS-E 24mm mk2 + 2x extender would cover both 24mm and 48mm. The extender would probably hurt IQ, but you would gain in price (compared to buying 24mm + 45mm) and weight.

3. The 45mm would probably be upgraded as well, but who knows when that would happen.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My next purchase is going to be a TS-E lens and I'm debating between two, the 24mm f3.5L II and the 45mm f2.8...

Originally I was thinking more about a 45mm TS-E lens to help make creative portraits, but seeing as how architecture/landscape does make up a fair bit of my work I think a 24mm would be of more use there.

Creative portraits vs. architecture/landscapes, and the latter make up more of your work. I'd say it's a no-brainer - get the 24mm II TS-E. You've got the 50mm f/1.2L already, which does wonderful creative portraits. As stated above, the TS-E lenses are compatible with extenders. You could also use a 24mm TS-E on your 7D for a FoV equivalent to 38mm (although to be honest, I've only mounted my TS-E 24mm on my 7D one time - the built-in flash gets in the way to some extent).

The difference in capabilities that J. McCabe mentions are important - the big one is that with the 24mm II (and the 17mm, but not the 45mm, 90mm, or 24mm MkI), you can change the relationship between tilt and shift on the fly. So, with the older lenses, the shift and tilt operate at 90° to one another, and to change that (e.g. so you can both shift and tilt vertically) you need to take apart the lens (or send it to Canon). The newer version has a simple switch to change it. It's almost certain that when the 45mm and 90mm versions are updated, they'll get that feature (and likely the L moniker, and a big price increase).

No lens in your kit will do as well for architecture/landscape photos as the 24mm TS-E - especially architecture. I presume you've ruled out the 17mm version based on the focal length you use most (you've got the 17-40mm so you know the framings). Personally, I chose the 24mm over the 17mm as a more useful focal length for my type of shooting, and I haven't regretted it a bit.

Here are a few samples:

Christian Science Mother Church, Boston, MA

EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 100, +10 shift

Custom House Tower, Boston, MA

EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 1/2 s, f/8, ISO 100, +12 shift

Gate in Confucius Temple Area, Nanjing, China

EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 6 s, f/8, ISO 100

 

[willrobb]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I think I will try to rent both as Orangutan and Edwin Herdman rightly suggested, but already I am 99% sure I will go for the 24mm 3.5LII. arrusarts, thanks for the info on the mkI vs mkII, I have already played with a mkI vs a 45mm in a second hand store, next time I leave the mkI and just go for the mkII to play with. As J. McCabe pointed out the extenders would give me options of up to 48mm which would save on cash outlay despite the IQ drop. Neuroanatomist, love the photos, they really helped seal the deal.

Much gratitude.

Will