Which TS lens is better

[keithcooper]

It depends...

The most relevant comment (IMHO) I've seen here is that it depends on what you need the lens for (I use 'need' in the less precise 'photographer' context, given it's an Xmas present ;-)

The 24mm offers somewhat superior image quality, but if you want extra wide, then it has to be 17mm

I use both regularly for my paying work (architecture, interiors, industrial), but looking at my archive, 17mm use outstrips 24mm by around 3:1. My 'minimum' bag on a job typically has 17mm TS, 24mm TS and 24-70 on a 1Ds3

Filters are not an issue for me, I just don't use them. Then again I regularly use both TS lenses hand held...

I've just finished writing about the Samyang 24mm TS lens, which is nowhere near as poor as some would suggest.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/samyang24ts.html

I should note that it's perhaps more written for those wanting to actually use the lens rather than pore over MTF charts and tables of measurements ;-)

 

[Hector1970]

I had this dilemma 17 vs 24mm. I chose 24mm and haven't regretted it. I think it's a more flexible focal length.
I could see that if it were interiors that you want to use it for the 17mm might be more appropriate.
I mainly use it for landscape and 24mm is perfect for that. Stitching also works really well if you want a wider view. Filters were an important factor for me. The 17mm at the time wasn't so straightforward.
So thumbs up on the 24mm TSE II. I don't leave home without it ( I am just praying that I don't ever break the knobs.)

I was interested in someones statement earlier about using it wide open
(I guess maybe astro photographers would a lot, though).
I am using a 14mm Samyang for Wide field Astrophotography.
I was wondering if the 24mm was commonly used for this.
I never thought of using it as maybe I thought it might be fiddly in the dark.

 

[infared]

That is my quote "as good or better"... I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE. I was in shock. In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens. I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses. The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on. It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article.
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.

I'm happy for you for you enthusiasm over your 17mm setup, you have good reason to. But the review you refer to must be against the old 24mm TS-E. The version II is optically nearly perfect. Extremely sharp and sharper than the 17mm, CA, flare, distortion and vignetting is very well controlled and color and contrast are absolute top notch. And so is the 17mm. The pixle peepers will probably give the 24mm the highest grades, but to me, the quality differences between the two are academic.

I had not tried the 17mm+1.4xIII combo before, but did yesterday. It works surprisingly well, but the results are not as good as those you get from the 24mm TS-E 3.5L II (the differences are more than academic here). I did not do a very thorough test of how much tilt & shift I got from one compared to the other, but it seemed the 24mm gave me more of both. I'm sure someone else in here has done the comparison.

OK...this is getting interesting....I think that I stand corrected that The review I read MUST have been comparing the 17mm II+1.4X III combo to the OLD 24mmTSE
So Eldar, thanks for checking that out and giving a personal report (I would but have no 24mm!). Question...did you compare with the lenses stopped down to 6.3 or 8?
The reason I ask is because if you take a look at the DigitalPicture Lens Comparison Tool (only web comparison that I can find), the results look VERY close. (Like say in a 20" x24" print are we going to see a difference?)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Any pics you can post?
I also apologize for my "perhaps" over enthusiasm.

 

[Eldar]

That is my quote "as good or better"... I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE. I was in shock. In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens. I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses. The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on. It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article.
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.

I'm happy for you for you enthusiasm over your 17mm setup, you have good reason to. But the review you refer to must be against the old 24mm TS-E. The version II is optically nearly perfect. Extremely sharp and sharper than the 17mm, CA, flare, distortion and vignetting is very well controlled and color and contrast are absolute top notch. And so is the 17mm. The pixle peepers will probably give the 24mm the highest grades, but to me, the quality differences between the two are academic.

I had not tried the 17mm+1.4xIII combo before, but did yesterday. It works surprisingly well, but the results are not as good as those you get from the 24mm TS-E 3.5L II (the differences are more than academic here). I did not do a very thorough test of how much tilt & shift I got from one compared to the other, but it seemed the 24mm gave me more of both. I'm sure someone else in here has done the comparison.

OK...this is getting interesting....I think that I stand corrected that The review I read MUST have been comparing the 17mm II+1.4X III combo to the OLD 24mmTSE
So Eldar, thanks for checking that out and giving a personal report (I would but have no 24mm!). Question...did you compare with the lenses stopped down to 6.3 or 8?
The reason I ask is because if you take a look at the DigitalPicture Lens Comparison Tool (only web comparison that I can find), the results look VERY close. (Like say in a 20" x24" print are we going to see a difference?)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Any pics you can post?
I also apologize for my "perhaps" over enthusiasm.

I just left on a business travel (currently sitting in an airport lounge), so it will be some time before I can post anything more than text.

In the TDP ISO chart comparison I think it´s clear that sharpness and contrast has taken a fair hit on the 17mm/1.4xIII combo. But the interesting question is of course what you would say looking at an actual image.

To compare with something else; Reuter published the statistics for the 100 best images of the year (2012). Which cameras, lenses, shutter speeds, ISO etc. was used. The most widely used lens was the 16-35mm f2.8L II. And it is beyond question that they have plenty of good images to choose from. If you compare the 17mm/1.4xIII combo to the 16-35 at 24mm f8, you´ll see that your combo is at least as good as the 16-35. So equipment wise you are positioned to produce image of the year quality with what you have.

 

[infared]

That is my quote "as good or better"... I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE. I was in shock. In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens. I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses. The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on. It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article.
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.

I'm happy for you for you enthusiasm over your 17mm setup, you have good reason to. But the review you refer to must be against the old 24mm TS-E. The version II is optically nearly perfect. Extremely sharp and sharper than the 17mm, CA, flare, distortion and vignetting is very well controlled and color and contrast are absolute top notch. And so is the 17mm. The pixle peepers will probably give the 24mm the highest grades, but to me, the quality differences between the two are academic.

I had not tried the 17mm+1.4xIII combo before, but did yesterday. It works surprisingly well, but the results are not as good as those you get from the 24mm TS-E 3.5L II (the differences are more than academic here). I did not do a very thorough test of how much tilt & shift I got from one compared to the other, but it seemed the 24mm gave me more of both. I'm sure someone else in here has done the comparison.

OK...this is getting interesting....I think that I stand corrected that The review I read MUST have been comparing the 17mm II+1.4X III combo to the OLD 24mmTSE
So Eldar, thanks for checking that out and giving a personal report (I would but have no 24mm!). Question...did you compare with the lenses stopped down to 6.3 or 8?
The reason I ask is because if you take a look at the DigitalPicture Lens Comparison Tool (only web comparison that I can find), the results look VERY close. (Like say in a 20" x24" print are we going to see a difference?)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Any pics you can post?
I also apologize for my "perhaps" over enthusiasm.

I just left on a business travel (currently sitting in an airport lounge), so it will be some time before I can post anything more than text.

In the TDP ISO chart comparison I think it´s clear that sharpness and contrast has taken a fair hit on the 17mm/1.4xIII combo. But the interesting question is of course what you would say looking at an actual image.

To compare with something else; Reuter published the statistics for the 100 best images of the year (2012). Which cameras, lenses, shutter speeds, ISO etc. was used. The most widely used lens was the 16-35mm f2.8L II. And it is beyond question that they have plenty of good images to choose from. If you compare the 17mm/1.4xIII combo to the 16-35 at 24mm f8, you´ll see that your combo is at least as good as the 16-35. So equipment wise you are positioned to produce image of the year quality with what you have.

That was my point..hit the sharpness and contrast a little with PS and who will know the difference. When I soot something with that rig it is always on a tripod and always stopped down..and when I see the real world results there is just no complaint from me! Thanks for the feedback...I am going to check out that comparison to the 16-35 II zoom on TDP!