Upgrade to a 5Dmk2 or TS-e lens?

[briansquibb]

The 180 is a great macro lens as it means you get a full shot without disturbing the wildlife - even more so with a 1.4 on it ....

 

[Caps18]

High on my list is the 17mm TS-E. If you don't need the video or 21 mp for your photos (while using the 17-40mm), then go with the lens.

If you go with the 5Dm2 and if you keep both bodies, you could have two different lenses on them ready to go.

If you are taking photos where you aren't able to wait 20 seconds to change a lens, it might be something to think about.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The TS-E 17mm does nice "close up" shots, but the perspective of close objects is hard to control (i.e. it appears distorted). The TS-E 90mm does nice near-macro stuff, too, but I wouldn't count out a real macro lens for that. On the macro side...I am considering one of the Sigma 180mm macros, simply because it's half price of the Canon and newer too.

 

[NWPhil]

The TS-E 17mm does nice "close up" shots, but the perspective of close objects is hard to control (i.e. it appears distorted). The TS-E 90mm does nice near-macro stuff, too, but I wouldn't count out a real macro lens for that. On the macro side...I am considering one of the Sigma 180mm macros, simply because it's half price of the Canon and newer too.

Can't make my mind about choosing the 17mm or the 24mm - I like ultra-wide, and I can where would become of use in narrow view areas (either urban or wild) - otherwise in large view landscapes, yes, indeed a lot of stuff will be too far away.
the 15mm and the 17-40 cover all that. My justification for the 24mm, iis that it would close the gap as a prime, between the 15mm and 35mm, and yet with almost the same quality as the ef24mm f1.4
As far as the macro, the 100mm covers most of my needs, and I can always slap my 1.4x extender or tubes, to gain distance or come close - yes, there is a "price" for that in image quality, but the 180mm is such a big chunk of glass...

in a different note, the ts-e 24mm price seems to be dropping lately, while the 17 remains more stable. Interesting to see such a wide range on the 24mm mk1, but seems to be a lot of confusing from the sellers, as some are listing them as mk2, or pricing it as a used one

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I ought to update myself and mention that I've switched to looking at extension tubes - they should work great on the TS-E 90mm and I hear good things about using them on the 135mm f/2L as well. I don't expect as much working distance as from a 180mm macro, though.

 

[NWPhil]

Using Live View is a chore, and it is a necessary chore if you want to get the best possible sharpness. It has nothing to do with laziness, and using the VF when you should be using Live View only means you're stubborn and stupid. There is nothing to be learned from failing to explore the uses of Live View.

While I would not express myself as drastic

Don't mind me. Others (including myself) have pointed out the Live View function as a modern ground glass, but this is just a case of myself and the kind Dr. going around (in this case, because again he insisted on saying something indefensible and insulting, apparently as a kind of joke, but misleading if read as actual advice).

I use the TS-E 17mm, and it's by far my favorite wideangle, I used to have the 14 II, but the converging lines limited it soo much for me.

Indeed. The 17mm is my ONLY wide-angle (the TS 35mm will hopefully be joining it soon, though) and it performs quite well! Although, given the price and current 5D Mark II prices, you'd have something of a personal deficit by the time you bought one - whereas the TS-E 90mm could be bought with some cash differential (more than half the price, actually) of a 5D Mark II, so that's worth considering.

I like the 17mm best when I can put it right up next to something (although this is a style of photograph I find more challenging to get right, since the wide-angle perspective - even on APS-C - doesn't really match my compositional eye well, but occasionally I can pull it off nicely).

Hi Edwin,
Thanks for your insights.
Did you ever used the ts-e 24mm?
Can't make my mind between that and the 17mm - and no, buying both is out of question :'(
24 is the a missing ling on my wide angles, but with a 1.4x extender and/or if I keep the 40d, I can "reach the 24mm view.
Price wise, there is not much of a difference.
I guess I have to rent both to get a better idea, but I would like to have some feedack as far as more "usefulness" of either lens - it's quite a difference from 17 to 24mm as far as view angle...
Thanks

 

[RobertG.]

I recently bought the TS-E 24 II and TS-E 90 instead of a 5d Mark II. I decided to wait at least until January with the cam. The TS-E 24 I bought because I can use filters with it and if I need a wider angle I can still use the shift. I also bought the Zoerk rear-shift-adapter which works with the TS-E 17 & 24. It lets me fix the lens on a tripod and the cam is tilted or shifted instead of the lens, so I can avoid any paralax errors. The adapter fixes the lens on the tripod in the nodal point of each lense, so now I can create perfect panos even on minimum focus distance and use either the shift or rotate the whole lense like a normal lense when stitching panos (or use both together for a super wide angle with vertical shift in portrait orientation and turning the adapter/whole lense in horizontal orientation for a multi-row pano). This versatility is simply not possible with just a new camera body...

Proper landscape shots without a pol filter and/or grad nd filters is unthinkable for me, so the TS-E 17 was not ann option.

The TS-E 90 I got for the longer focal length, the superb sharpness and the macro possibilities, although I have a macro lense. I really love this lense since the first shot and my EF 85 1.8 will gather some dust pretty soon