24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

Archive 2012 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

user222
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

These two lenses have their own niche at 24mm...one has AF and the wide aperture, the other, tilt and shift...and apparently a larger imaging circle.

I did a little searching around but didn't find a whole lot comparing these two lenses stopped down. From what I've read they are both sharp, both have good corner resolution.

Interested to hear from anyone who has/had both these lenses...or compared them at common landscape apertures?

I have the 24 1.4 II and it's great (for landscapes as well)...at the same time some of the photos I'm seeing from the TS-E 24mm are just outstanding. Some of my favorite photos I've seen on this site.

I know that the the 24 1.4 II does not have the same microcontrast as the Distagon 21mm. Does the 24 TS-E have better microcontrast then the 24 1.4 II? Interested to hear others opinions on these two lenses for landscape.

Jan 20, 2012 at 11:40 PM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

I have the EF 24/1.4L Mk I, TS-E 24/3.5L II, and Distagon 21/2.8 ZE. I've never compared them head-to-head, because I've never wanted to use them for the same subject. I use the 24/1.4L wide open - that's why I bought it. I use the TS-E 24/3.5L for wide tilt and/or shift applications. I use the Distagon for very-wide photos. I've heard rumors that the corners of the 24/1.4L II are sharper than the Mk I, but that doesn't matter to me. If I want sharp corners, I'll use the Distagon or the TS-E 24/3.5L II.

P.S. I haven't noticed a 'micro contrast' difference between my TS-E 214/3.5L II and my Distagon 21/2.8 ZE.

P.P.S. how do you define 'micro contrast'?

Jan 21, 2012 at 12:42 AM

user222
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

jcolwell wrote: P.P.S. how do you define 'micro contrast'?

I consider it the ability of the lens to emphasize small details.

For instance, take a photo of some trees/foliage with the Distagon 21mm, and then compare the same shot with another WA lens. I haven't seen such exceptional "micro-contrast" from a WA lens as the D21. My old 17-40 wouldn't even come close. Although both lenses would be considered "sharp" at say f/8.

Jan 21, 2012 at 01:08 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

IMO, micro-contrast is more-or-less the same as 'sharpness', which is the combination of resolution and contrast (i.e. apparent resolution).

Regardless, the TS-E 24/3.5L II and Distagon 21/2.8 ZE both have exceptional 'micro contrast'. I don't know how the 24/1.4L (I or II) compares, but I don't worry about it. I expect the EF 24/2.8 has effectively the same micro contrast as the 24/1.4L, at f/8.

P.S. I'll test that comparison between the 24/2.8 and 24/1.4L tomorrow. Unless I get distracted by the pending AFL championship game on Sunday.

Go Pats!

Jan 21, 2012 at 01:19 AM

Fred Miranda
Online
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

In my opinion, at smaller apertures, the Canon 24TSE II is the best 24mm Canon offers. It is distortion / chromatic aberration free and provides incredible high resolution center to corner. On top of that, you have tilt and shift options.

Jan 21, 2012 at 01:27 AM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

Fred Miranda wrote:
In my opinion, at smaller apertures, the Canon 24TSE II is the best 24mm Canon offers. It is distortion / chromatic aberration free and provides incredible high resolution center to corner. On top of that, you have tilt and shift options.

+1

Jan 21, 2012 at 01:45 AM

stanj
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

I think the TSE is better from a contrast and sharpness perspective, so for landscapes etc. that's the one I would (and do) take. I use the 1.4 for its low light powers.

Jan 21, 2012 at 02:39 AM

user222
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

Dang it! I was hoping someone would talk me and my wallet back from the ledge here.

...and Jcolwell, Sven and Stan.

Jan 21, 2012 at 03:34 AM

kevindar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

I have the 24 tse II, and just bought a 24L II, which is now back for exchange for focus issues. when it comes back, I can do a formal compare. you can also check the digital picture for comparison.

Jan 21, 2012 at 04:05 AM

Photon
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

I kind of miss the term "acutance", which is essentially micro contrast. In the days of film, it could be influenced by choice of developer, so you would see the word used in instructions. Now it can be affected by sharpening. In either case, the resolution had to be there if you wanted details to be visible, so a viewer's impression of sharpness typically was influenced by both resolution and acutance.

I just got a 24 TSE II, and have the original 24/1.4 L. I've never thought of the fast L as a lens for landscape, but now I'm curious and intend to do a comparison at f/8. I'll try to set up something that will reveal fine detail resolution as well as acutance. Probably Jim Colwell (and maybe kevindar) will beat me to it.

Jan 21, 2012 at 06:18 AM

SKumar25
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

From Luminous Landscape:

"microcontrast": The ability of the lens to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. The better contrast a lens has (and this has nothing to do with the lightdark range or distribution of tones in the final print or slide) means its ability to take two small areas of slightly different luminance and distinguish the boundary of one from the other.

Jan 21, 2012 at 06:28 AM

Peter Figen
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

"I kind of miss the term "acutance", which is essentially micro contrast. In the days of film, it could be influenced by choice of developer, so you would see the word used in instructions. Now it can be affected by sharpening. In either case, the resolution had to be there if you wanted details to be visible, so a viewer's impression of sharpness typically was influenced by both resolution and acutance."

I was just comparing two images this afternoon that I shot in the Alabama Hills this summer - one with a three frame stitch with the new 24 T/S and the other with the Mamiya 7 43mm on T-Max 100 and drum scanned at 4000 ppi. The two images have similar framing and are actually very similar in overall detail. The three stitch Canon image is the equivalent of shooting a 36x48 mm sensor with the 6.4 micron pixel pitch.

In the center of the image, the Canon was probably just a tad sharper but the Mamiya had better acutance. The T-Max showed grain in the sky while the 1DsIII files essentially had none. The biggest difference was when you get farther away from the center of the frame. The corners of the Canon, while good (f/11), were still no match at all for the Mamiya wide angle. In the corners, both detail and microcontrast are outstanding and clearly better than the Canon.

I mean they are both very good, and the Canon T/S is probably about as good as you're going to get on 35mm based lenses, but still not quite what the best medium format lenses are capable of pushing out on film. It's the kind of imagery that pushes the limits of the lenses, and I was interested in seeing how close the two performed - very close with the slight edge to the Mamiya. And still, as I've said before, this new 24 is as close as you're going to get to some of the most legendary lenses ever made. That's saying quite a bit.

"I just got a 24 TSE II, and have the original 24/1.4 L. I've never thought of the fast L as a lens for landscape, but now I'm curious and intend to do a comparison at f/8. I'll try to set up something that will reveal fine detail resolution as well as acutance. Probably Jim Colwell (and maybe kevindar) will beat me to it. "

I had the original 24L 1.4 and now have the version 2 lens, but only do to a fluke of Canon not being able to fix a focus issue with the older one. Quite frankly, there was so little difference in resolution between the two lenses that I could not justify the additional cost of the newer lens. The new lens is a very very little bit better in sharpness and never approaches the T/S lens in the corners - not even close. What the new 24L does is practically eliminate the color fringing that plagued the older design. If you used CaptureOne to process your raw files, then the color fringing is not really an issue, but it's still something you have to spend some time on.

I think the new 24L 1.4 is probably just a hair sharper in the center than the T/S lens, f/stop for f/stop, but loses out in the corners to the more even resolution distribution of the tilt-shift. So it really depends on how you're going to use the two lenses. For straight landscape where even the extreme corners are important, there's no beating the tilt-shift. For images where you need the speed and can put the most important subject matter in the middle part of the frame, the fast L is wonderful. There's room for both in your bag, but you need a pretty big bag, especially when you add in the 17 t/s and the 70-200 2.8II as well.

Jan 21, 2012 at 07:36 AM

David Baldwin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

"I had the original 24L 1.4 and now have the version 2 lens, but only do to a fluke of Canon not being able to fix a focus issue with the older one. Quite frankly, there was so little difference in resolution between the two lenses that I could not justify the additional cost of the newer lens. The new lens is a very very little bit better in sharpness"

Peter, have to disagree with you there. My 24L f1.4L Mk2 is dramatically sharper than my old 24L f1.4 Mk1, mainly due I suspect to much better CA control. Although I have to say my 24L Mk2 has disappointing AF performance on my 7D and 5D2, but since I personally bought it for landscapes where I focus with Live View anyway doesn't bother me particularly (though for the money I spent on it I blood well should mind!) Can't comment on the 24L TS-E but due to its reputation and wide imaging circle I would expect it should be better than either 24L in terms of large print IQ.

Jan 21, 2012 at 08:13 AM

user222
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

Peter Figen wrote:I think the new 24L 1.4 is probably just a hair sharper in the center than the T/S lens, f/stop for f/stop, but loses out in the corners to the more even resolution distribution of the tilt-shift. So it really depends on how you're going to use the two lenses. For straight landscape where even the extreme corners are important, there's no beating the tilt-shift. For images where you need the speed and can put the most important subject matter in the middle part of the frame, the fast L is wonderful. There's room for both in your bag, but you need a pretty big bag, especially when you add in the 17 t/s and the 70-200 2.8II as well.

Good info...thanks Peter. I was looking at the resolution charts at digital picture and drawing a similar conclusion.

PS: Your TS-E photos are great! Love that one of the virgin mary statue in front of the church.

Jan 21, 2012 at 08:19 AM

Eyvind Ness
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

I own both, and use the 24 f1.4 mkII almost all the time. I'm not so much into landscapes, though. I did a non-formal comparison this spring, though, that you might find relevant.

24 f1.4 mkII, at f10:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

TS-E 24 mkII, at f8:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Cheers,
Eyvind

Jan 21, 2012 at 08:36 AM

Fjellfalck
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

According to photozone.de :

review Photozone 24 1.4 II

Review photozone 24 TS-E 3.5 II

From their analyses they are almost equal sharp at f/8, but the 24mm TS-E seems a tad sharper at f/11 (from dpereview.de):

Fjellfalck

2013 © Fjellfalck

Jan 21, 2012 at 08:42 AM

user222
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

David Baldwin wrote: Although I have to say my 24L Mk2 has disappointing AF performance on my 7D and 5D2...

Just throwing this out there because it worked so well for me. When I picked up the 24 1.4 II, I had erratic front and back focusing on my 7D...I mean it was way off. I took it back to the store and tried two more copies at the store, and took home the one that seemed the best out of the 3. Shooting from home again I started getting major focus misses on my 7D. I was resigned to giving up on this lens and returning it to the store. As a last ditch I started searching the interwebs and found the 7D "hard reset."

I took out the battery...and the secondary "clock" battery, and left the camera in the on position. They say at least an hour, but I left it overnight. The next day I was clicking away, and the focus was right on target. This also improved the AF performance of my 400 5.6.

Someone posted a thread here about the Hard Reset, and a few people laughed it off, as if it was a myth. It's not. Cameras have evolved in to microcomputers, and anyone who owns a mac or a pc knows that a periodic reboot can resolve certain problems.

Jan 21, 2012 at 08:54 AM

David Baldwin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

Thanks user222. I will give it a try.

Jan 21, 2012 at 03:21 PM

sbay
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

user222 wrote:
I know that the the 24 1.4 II does not have the same microcontrast as the Distagon 21mm. Does the 24 TS-E have better microcontrast then the 24 1.4 II? Interested to hear others opinions on these two lenses for landscape.

Although the TS-E is a very expensive lens, I cannot imagine doing landscape images without tilt especially for near-far compositions. Even if the lens were only average (instead of superb), I'd still reach for it because of the benefits of tilt (and shift).

Jan 21, 2012 at 05:40 PM

Fred Miranda
Online
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · 24mm 1.4 II vs 24mm TS-E II around f/8

Peter Figen wrote:
"I kind of miss the term "acutance", which is essentially micro contrast. In the days of film, it could be influenced by choice of developer, so you would see the word used in instructions. Now it can be affected by sharpening. In either case, the resolution had to be there if you wanted details to be visible, so a viewer's impression of sharpness typically was influenced by both resolution and acutance."

I was just comparing two images this afternoon that I shot in the Alabama Hills this summer - one with a three frame stitch with the new 24 T/S and the other with the Mamiya 7 43mm on T-Max 100 and drum scanned at 4000 ppi. The two images have similar framing and are actually very similar in overall detail. The three stitch Canon image is the equivalent of shooting a 36x48 mm sensor with the 6.4 micron pixel pitch.

In the center of the image, the Canon was probably just a tad sharper but the Mamiya had better acutance. The T-Max showed grain in the sky while the 1DsIII files essentially had none. The biggest difference was when you get farther away from the center of the frame. The corners of the Canon, while good (f/11), were still no match at all for the Mamiya wide angle. In the corners, both detail and microcontrast are outstanding and clearly better than the Canon.

I mean they are both very good, and the Canon T/S is probably about as good as you're going to get on 35mm based lenses, but still not quite what the best medium format lenses are capable of pushing out on film. It's the kind of imagery that pushes the limits of the lenses, and I was interested in seeing how close the two performed - very close with the slight edge to the Mamiya. And still, as I've said before, this new 24 is as close as you're going to get to some of the most legendary lenses ever made. That's saying quite a bit.

"I just got a 24 TSE II, and have the original 24/1.4 L. I've never thought of the fast L as a lens for landscape, but now I'm curious and intend to do a comparison at f/8. I'll try to set up something that will reveal fine detail resolution as well as acutance. Probably Jim Colwell (and maybe kevindar) will beat me to it. "

I had the original 24L 1.4 and now have the version 2 lens, but only do to a fluke of Canon not being able to fix a focus issue with the older one. Quite frankly, there was so little difference in resolution between the two lenses that I could not justify the additional cost of the newer lens. The new lens is a very very little bit better in sharpness and never approaches the T/S lens in the corners - not even close. What the new 24L does is practically eliminate the color fringing that plagued the older design. If you used CaptureOne to process your raw files, then the color fringing is not really an issue, but it's still something you have to spend some time on.

I think the new 24L 1.4 is probably just a hair sharper in the center than the T/S lens, f/stop for f/stop, but loses out in the corners to the more even resolution distribution of the tilt-shift. So it really depends on how you're going to use the two lenses. For straight landscape where even the extreme corners are important, there's no beating the tilt-shift. For images where you need the speed and can put the most important subject matter in the middle part of the frame, the fast L is wonderful. There's room for both in your bag, but you need a pretty big bag, especially when you add in the 17 t/s and the 70-200 2.8II as well.

Hi Peter,
Thanks for posting your Mamiya vs Canon 24TSEII impressions in a real shooting environment. To me this is more valuable than any online test chart.

How much did you shift the 24TSEII to get your final stitch? If you went all the way to 12mm, the loss of resolution in the corners would be noticeable but still "sharp"...and that says a lot!
(That is the impressions I get with my copy)

I get similar results with my 24TSEII and 17TSE (12mm shifted) but the 24TSEII is even better. If you stop at around 10mm shift, the results are quite impressive center to edge. When unshifted/untilted, the 24TSEII is razor sharp from center to edge. Field curvature is more or less flat.

At the end of your post, you mentioned carrying the 17TSE, 24TSEII and 70-200mm. To me this is a killer landscape combo. Add the Canon 1.4x entender and you get a high quality ~35TSE as well. I personally prefer the lighter 70-200mm f/4L IS though.
Fred

Jan 21, 2012 at 07:11 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end