Which TS-E for NYC?

[rmfagan]

Hello all-

Finally ready to take the plunge on a TS-E lens but still woefully undecided on which. I currently shoot on a 5D3, with the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, and the nifty 50.

Living just outside of NYC it seems a shame I haven't taken the opportunity to photograph it. My primary interest in this context is the phenomenal architecture of the city, though I quite enjoy people photography as well. I'm envisioning the 24-70L II, a 135L, and one of the TS-E's (along with my Gitzo carbon legs and RRS ball head) as a suitable kit to these ends. But I'm undecided on the 17 vs 24.

One the one hand, 17 gives me a perspective 24 can't (though I could take advantage of shift movements). I have the Lee Big Stopper and hope to employ it but I read that is now also possible with the 17. So which is my better investment if I'm hoping to capture shots of the Brooklyn Bridge, Flat Iron Building, GCT, High Line, NY Public Library, and the like?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Quasimodo]

Hello all-

Finally ready to take the plunge on a TS-E lens but still woefully undecided on which. I currently shoot on a 5D3, with the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, and the nifty 50.

Living just outside of NYC it seems a shame I haven't taken the opportunity to photograph it. My primary interest in this context is the phenomenal architecture of the city, though I quite enjoy people photography as well. I'm envisioning the 24-70L II, a 135L, and one of the TS-E's (along with my Gitzo carbon legs and RRS ball head) as a suitable kit to these ends. But I'm undecided on the 17 vs 24.

One the one hand, 17 gives me a perspective 24 can't (though I could take advantage of shift movements). I have the Lee Big Stopper and hope to employ it but I read that is now also possible with the 17. So which is my better investment if I'm hoping to capture shots of the Brooklyn Bridge, Flat Iron Building, GCT, High Line, NY Public Library, and the like?

Thanks in advance!

I took this one with the 16-35 II at the River Cafe in Brooklyn of the skyline with the bridge. I seriously wanted the 17L TS-E and got it, but I am currently selling it (I am in Norway, so you are not in the market . What I am trying to say, is that tilt shift lenses are a speciality lens, and be sure that it is what you really want. I would today rather go for the 14L II.
Just my two cents

 

[Loswr]

I'd go with the TS-E 17mm. You can add a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm, IQ remains very good.

For some inspiration:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk1982/

 

[Eldar]

I'd go with the TS-E 17mm. You can add a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm, IQ remains very good.

For some inspiration:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk1982/

+1 (and a few)
Both the TS-E lenses are phenomenal lenses, but I believe you´ll find the 17 to be the better choice for NYC. I have both and I use both. The 24 is probably the sharpest 24 I have ever seen and it is a bit easier, due to its flat front lens and filter availability. But the 17 is more fun.

 

[rpt]

I'd go with the TS-E 17mm. You can add a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm, IQ remains very good.

For some inspiration:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk1982/

Fabulous pictures neuro!

 

[Loswr]

For some inspiration:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk1982/

Fabulous pictures neuro!
[/quote]

Indeed...I've been following him on Flickr for some time.

 

[tayassu]

Also a vote for the 17mm. You can't get wide enough in a city

 

[rpt]

For what it is worth, I use the poor man's TS-E; the straightening tool in LR

Well, until I have money for a TS-E...

 

[rmfagan]

A bit of a wrinkle... I also quite enjoy landscape photography and frequently visit Vermont and NH, and occasionally travel to Montana and Utah to visit family. I'm also hoping to do another trip to Iceland in the coming year. Does my 24-70 II perform well enough for landscape uses that the utility of the 17 TS-E for architecture/interiors outweighs the 24 TS-E's benefits for landscape purposes.

To nip the impending suggestion in the bud: I can't afford to buy both.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'd go with the TS-E 17mm. You can add a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm, IQ remains very good.

For some inspiration:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk1982/

+1, That is what I did and am very happy. I even upgraded to the MkIII 1.4 TC. I also have the WonderPana CPL for it which is a really nice solution.

My advice always with the TS-E's is very simple, get the focal length you think you will use most, sounds trite but it isn't. You can make a 24 a 17 fov by stitching, you can make a 17 a 24 with a TC. You can't make a 24 an 11 (a shift stitched 17) without rotating the lens for a traditional pano. And the 17 doesn't play as well with the 2xTC as the 24 does with a 1.4. So if your composition favours 24mm get that, it is sharper and takes filters easier, if you favour wider most of the time get the 17.

 

[sulla]

Without wanting to start a flaming war here, BUT: I fail to see the purpose of both the TSE17 and TSE24:

• Correcting for perspective can be done in LR very well. No Shift is needed in the digital age. (Yes, I know, you'll lose some pixels. So, no need for the "S".
• Tilt is useless on those 2 lenses, because, except for very close close-ups, everything is sharp at any aperture anyway. So no need for the "T".

I can put the tilt to very good use on my TSE90, however, because playing with the focal plane is very useful for me for macro and product photography. It can also be of good use in architecture, but I haven't explored that use yet.

Admittedly, Shift is useless on my TSE90.

So, why not give the TSE-45 or the TSE90 a try instead of the 17 or 24??

 

[Eldar]

A bit of a wrinkle... I also quite enjoy landscape photography and frequently visit Vermont and NH, and occasionally travel to Montana and Utah to visit family. I'm also hoping to do another trip to Iceland in the coming year. Does my 24-70 II perform well enough for landscape uses that the utility of the 17 TS-E for architecture/interiors outweighs the 24 TS-E's benefits for landscape purposes.

To nip the impending suggestion in the bud: I can't afford to buy both.

Your 24-70 II performs well enough. I was on Iceland earlier this year and my most used lenses was the 24-70 II and the Zeiss 15mm. You do not need TS-E on Iceland, but bring a tripod.

 

[rpt]

Without wanting to start a flaming war here, BUT: I fail to see the purpose of both the TSE17 and TSE24:

• Correcting for perspective can be done in LR very well. No Shift is needed in the digital age. (Yes, I know, you'll lose some pixels. So, no need for the "S".
  

The things I straightened with LR I lost quite a few pixels - usually at the bottom. So I guess you anticipated that and stepped back and shot...

 

[privatebydesign]

Without wanting to start a flaming war here, BUT: I fail to see the purpose of both the TSE17 and TSE24:

• Correcting for perspective can be done in LR very well. No Shift is needed in the digital age. (Yes, I know, you'll lose some pixels. So, no need for the "S".
• Tilt is useless on those 2 lenses, because, except for very close close-ups, everything is sharp at any aperture anyway. So no need for the "T".

I can put the tilt to very good use on my TSE90, however, because playing with the focal plane is very useful for me for macro and product photography. It can also be of good use in architecture, but I haven't explored that use yet.

Admittedly, Shift is useless on my TSE90.

So, why not give the TSE-45 or the TSE90 a try instead of the 17 or 24??

Minor shifting can be done very easily in post, bigger corrections eat into IQ surprisingly quickly. Look 2/3 down the page for a perfect example here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html

As for tilt being useless on these focal lengths, that is pure nonsense. Look at the bridge and tower crops here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml

Going from my own experiences these differences are noticeable in relatively small prints, certainly in 17" prints.

I would argue, and have, that tilt in a macro situation is of very limited utility, particularly with Canon TS-E's and their mere 8º of tilt which, when combined with the very short J distances often used in macro imagery, make it almost entirely ineffective most of the time.

 

[surapon]

Dear Friend Mr. rmfagan
I just have 1-TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II and on my Main Camera 85% of the time, I love for the sharpness from corner to corner of this lens---Yes in the day job, I use B+W 82 KSM C-POL MRC, F-PRO FILTER ALL THE TIMES.
And this Lens never Fail me.
Good Luck.
Surapon

 

[Eldar]

Without wanting to start a flaming war here, BUT: I fail to see the purpose of both the TSE17 and TSE24:

• Correcting for perspective can be done in LR very well. No Shift is needed in the digital age. (Yes, I know, you'll lose some pixels. So, no need for the "S".
• Tilt is useless on those 2 lenses, because, except for very close close-ups, everything is sharp at any aperture anyway. So no need for the "T".

I can put the tilt to very good use on my TSE90, however, because playing with the focal plane is very useful for me for macro and product photography. It can also be of good use in architecture, but I haven't explored that use yet.

Admittedly, Shift is useless on my TSE90.

So, why not give the TSE-45 or the TSE90 a try instead of the 17 or 24??

Minor shifting can be done very easily in post, bigger corrections eat into IQ surprisingly quickly. Look 2/3 down the page for a perfect example here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html

As for tilt being useless on these focal lengths, that is pure nonsense. Look at the bridge and tower crops here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml

Going from my own experiences these differences are noticeable in relatively small prints, certainly in 17" prints.

I would argue, and have, that tilt in a macro situation is of very limited utility, particularly with Canon TS-E's and their mere 8º of tilt which, when combined with the very short J distances often used in macro imagery, make it almost entirely ineffective most of the time.

And on top of the reduced IQ from using software instead of lens shift, you have to crop the image (substantially) and lose what you originally framed. I would also argue that optical shift, compared to software based shift generates totally different results. I am very fond of my TS-E lenses for that reason.