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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared
  
 
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


nntnam wrote:
This is really a big surprise for me. For what I heard and read, the TS-E is far more superior than any prime lens in term of IQ at the same focal length. However your test show it's not really as good as they said. Feel a little bit disappointed here, because I'm going to purchase the 24 TS-E II.


The 24mm TSE-II is really really good, maybe I just have a superb sample of the 17-40L. It's the only sample I have had and one of my first L lenses ever (about 10 years old) so I can't compare it to other 17-40L's




May 07, 2014 at 05:46 PM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


I think the 17-40L more than holds it's own against the medium format images.

Yes they are superior (mainly it seems to me because they are bigger, not necessarily much sharper) but the prints would have to be huge to see a significant difference IMHO. It certainly isn't 'chalk and cheese' as one might expect



May 07, 2014 at 05:46 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Thanks Sneaky. A bit out of my league. I have the RRS pano head though

nntnam wrote:
... Feel a little bit disappointed here...


Glass half empty thing I think. They both look good to me. I haven't used my TSE much yet but the positive response to it by the many experienced users here have me confident I'll be happy with its results.



May 07, 2014 at 05:50 PM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


The per pixel sharpness of the 40mm HR-W is just incredible, easier to see when you are working with them on screen. Even in a 20x30in print the difference is dramatic. On a 30x40in print the Phase images with this lens are better than even the ones made with the D800E and the best lenses. I rented the Nikon and a few lenses to test this out last year.

The 40mm HR-W and IQ160 combo is the first camera I have ever used that actually shows at least equal or a bit more than what I see with the naked eye. It just records the scenes right. Of course the cost is significant. It just tells you how much it takes to really significantly improve on a relatively affordable Canon (or Nikon) setup.



May 07, 2014 at 05:58 PM
mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Without DPP plug-ins, my naked 17-40L IQ is no where near ZE21mm f2.8 but it is the best light zoom to walk around when needed.


May 07, 2014 at 06:19 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Sneakyracer wrote:
The point of this test for me was personal just to see if the lens I sent to be adjusted came back equal or better than before I sent it in.


Your experience with an adjusted lens mirrors mine—in other words, I have sent in a "problem" lens and had it return in much better condition. In at least one notable case, it was literally better than when it was new.

nntnam wrote:
This is really a big surprise for me. For what I heard and read, the TS-E is far more superior than any prime lens in term of IQ at the same focal length. However your test show it's not really as good as they said. Feel a little bit disappointed here, because I'm going to purchase the 24 TS-E II.


Often when we hear on photo forums that X is miles better than Y, the truth is frequently more like:

1. X is better than Y, but by a smaller increment than the verbiage might imply,

2. X is better than Y in some ways, but Y can be better than X in others,

3. Both X and Y are actually quite good,

4. Either X or Y could be a better choice, depending on what and how you shoot, and

5. It is difficult for all of us at times to step outside of the perspective of our own photography (I'm not immune) and understand that our needs are not equal to everyone's needs.

If you need what the TS lenses do, then you need the TS lenses. If you don't need that, but you might need other things more, then the TS lenses may not improve your photography and might even impair it. Or not.

;-)

Sneakyracer wrote:
On a 30x40in print the Phase images with this lens are better than...


I'd say that those regularly making very high quality 30 x 40 prints are candidates for MF digital. Up to roughly 24 x 36 (and a bit larger with 800, etc) the difference, while visible to those who look very carefully, tends to be much less significant and would likely not be significant for most people to choose to give up the flexibility and so forth of full frame DSLR shooting.

Dan



May 07, 2014 at 06:41 PM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


gdanmitchell wrote:
Your experience with an adjusted lens mirrors mine—in other words, I have sent in a "problem" lens and had it return in much better condition. In at least one notable case, it was literally better than when it was new.

Often when we hear on photo forums that X is miles better than Y, the truth is frequently more like:

1. X is better than Y, but by a smaller increment than the verbiage might imply,

2. X is better than Y in some ways, but Y can be better than X in others,

3. Both X and Y are actually quite good,
...Show more

I agree. Honestly most of the better lenses for Canon really exceed what the sensor is capable of in regards to sharpness. What I am seeing is that the sensor is most times the limiting factor.

MF Digital really comes into its own when you have wide angle, expansive compositions with lots of fine detail (leaves, grass, foliage in general and rock, vegetation details).



May 07, 2014 at 07:14 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Hmm is there something wrong with your T&S. I'm surprised that it clearly looks less sharp center frame and a little less so at the short borders (if a little bit crisper at long ends). Maybe focused weirdly or something?
Got caught by some heat haze?



May 07, 2014 at 07:27 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


leftcoastlefty wrote:
I don't get the point of this test. Most any lens will perform nicely at f/8. Over on the-digital-picture.com, the 24mm TSE looks a bit better in the corner, but both lens are plenty acceptable. The need for a zoom or a shift is more of a deciding factor than image quality at f/8.


No the whole all lenses are the same at f/8 is another myth.

75-300 IS 300mm f/8 looks nowhere near 300 2.8 IS f/8, much less overall contrast, much less crisp across the frame, not as purely loCA free.

24 1.4 II, 24 2.8 IS, 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS clearly look better at FF edges/corners and most at the center too, than 24-105L at 24mm and f/8. They have less LoCA/PF too.

My tamron 28-75 looked better than 24 2.8 and original version 18-55 IS kit at 24/28mm even at f/8 even on aps-c.



May 07, 2014 at 07:31 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


maybe you have a super top 17-40, ideally adjusted by some canon guy who was bored and put it on an optical bench all day long and fined tuned everything to ultimate perfection compared to a mediocre/avg 24 T&S II? (I swa on DPR that for a whole year a lot of people were complaing that their 24 T&S II copy didn't seem to live up to the rep and they had this part of the frame or that part seeming soft). I don't know. Maybe the 17-40 does better right at the middle of it's range than most thought and it's only softer FF edges at the extremes of focal length.

My first 17-40 L was soft at edges even on aps-c 20D, returned it and the second one was better, pretty good on aps-c. ultimately the tamron 17-50 was better for me though, more range, plus f/2.8 and lighter/smaller and just as good (other than trace less contrast and richness in the center, although a trace better at that at the edges).



May 07, 2014 at 07:37 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Scott Stoness
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Sneakyracer wrote:
Hi, I recently sent my 17-40L (about 10 years old) to Canon to have them clean it and adjust it since the zoom ring was loose and the focus ring felt a bit gritty. It came back looking almost brand new after a week.

I mounted my 5D3 on the Gitzo 3 series tripod (RRS head) and shot an image with it and another with the 24mm TSE-II which I love and use quite a bit. The settings were identical (iso 100, f8, 1/400) and the processing on Lightroom minimal (no lens or CA corrections) and identical on both images. Any
...Show more

Its not surprising to me. The 17-40L is much maligned. It is weak wide open at 17mm but sharpens up dramatically above about 20mm and stopped down a bit. Which is relfected in photozone.de testing.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1

If you compare photozone.de for 17-40 and ts24 at near 24 you will find near identical results

Distortion at 28mm is lower on 17-40 (.2 vs 0.9) and both are quite good
Vignettting is higher on 17-40 (1 vs .42) but pretty good
Resolution is likely within your ability to recognize (2900 on extreme edge vs 3100) and very good
CA is comparable (0.51 vs 0.41) and good

This is visually apparent as well in the digital picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

If you use the 17-40L at 20mm and greater and f5.6 and greater it is a good as most great lens.

However, at 17mm, the TS 17 is significantly better in all dimensions.

So good zoom above 20mm and acceptable below 20mm.



May 07, 2014 at 11:45 PM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Thanks for the links Scott. My test at infinity confirms those numbers.

I dunno how the performance compares between those two lenses when focused closer. The 24 TSE II is excellent up close and I know it is a sharp copy because I get a touch of moire at times in some areas and I have a good feel of what the 5D3 sensor is capable of. I have used a bunch of different lenses on this body. (Currently own 11 L lenses)

My experience with the 17-40L is that the edges/borders get worse and worse as you zoom out to 17mm. I will take some images tomorrow and see how the lens is performing in that regard.



May 08, 2014 at 12:09 AM
Gunzorro
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Sneaky -- Thanks for the comparison so far. I'm looking forward to what you find at the ends. 17 to about 21 was the worst end for me. Middle was best, and far end very good. So your results with the 25-28mm confirm what was used to with mine. You look to have a fine sample there!


May 08, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Mike K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


My copy of the 17-40 was quite acceptable on APS H crop body. I used it on the wide end and very rarely above 24mm as I would often switch to the 24-70. However when moving to the full frame 5DII I found the softness along the borders and corners to be very apparent and discouraged me from composing with this lens, so I sold it and purchased primes for the UWA focal lengths. I believe my experience is not uncommon and had lead to the 17-40 reputation.

Looks like Sneakyracer has an exceptional copy (I presume all examples shown are on FF bodies?). Its great to see such performance; I wish mine could have done as well.
Mike K



May 08, 2014 at 01:01 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Mike K wrote:
My copy of the 17-40 was quite acceptable on APS H crop body. I used it on the wide end and very rarely above 24mm as I would often switch to the 24-70. However when moving to the full frame 5DII I found the softness along the borders and corners to be very apparent and discouraged me from composing with this lens, so I sold it and purchased primes for the UWA focal lengths. I believe my experience is not uncommon and had lead to the 17-40 reputation.

Looks like Sneakyracer has an exceptional copy (I presume all examples shown
...Show more

Yes, I used the 5D3 on all. I do have a 1DS3 as 2nd body and backup but haven't used it in a while.



May 08, 2014 at 01:03 AM
dgdg
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


gdanmitchell wrote:
Often when we hear on photo forums that X is miles better than Y, the truth is frequently more like:

1. X is better than Y, but by a smaller increment than the verbiage might imply,

2. X is better than Y in some ways, but Y can be better than X in others,

3. Both X and Y are actually quite good,

4. Either X or Y could be a better choice, depending on what and how you shoot, and

5. It is difficult for all of us at times to step outside of the perspective of our own photography (I'm not
...Show more

But mine goes to 11.



May 08, 2014 at 01:25 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


gdanmitchell wrote:
If you need what the TS lenses do, then you need the TS lenses. If you don't need that, but you might need other things more, then the TS lenses may not improve your photography and might even impair it.
Dan


Some of us want a range of options available in our photography toolbox to draw on. Why do you assume it is an either/or proposition? And why should having TS lenses impair anyone's photography? My assumption borne out of experience is that the majority of people who own TS lenses know what they want and what they are doing. For some reason you seem to focus more on the outlier.



May 08, 2014 at 02:49 AM
Scott Stoness
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Sneakyracer wrote:
Thanks for the links Scott. My test at infinity confirms those numbers.

I dunno how the performance compares between those two lenses when focused closer. The 24 TSE II is excellent up close and I know it is a sharp copy because I get a touch of moire at times in some areas and I have a good feel of what the 5D3 sensor is capable of. I have used a bunch of different lenses on this body. (Currently own 11 L lenses)

My experience with the 17-40L is that the edges/borders get worse and worse as you zoom out to 17mm.
...Show more

You are welcome - I will also say:
1) 17-40 is light and pretty inexpensive for what you get. And you can go 17-40.
2) The TS17 or TS24 are my go to lens because of leaning trees. Eg although they have really good iq, where they blow all the other lens away, for landscape, is in functionality at the cost of expense and require more skill to use. But you have to swap lens for composition.

So for non landscape, or off the tripod, I would favor the 17-40 but on the tripod, the TS lens.



May 08, 2014 at 03:44 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


I have tested many copies of the 17-40 f/4L and @17mm they were quite soft towards the "extreme corners" which yours samples are not showing. They did look OK at f/11 but still soft for bigger prints. However, 24mm is the lens sweet stop and very good as you demonstrated.

Fred



May 08, 2014 at 03:55 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Canon 24mm TSE II vs 17-40L Compared


Fred Miranda wrote:
I have tested many copies of the 17-40 f/4L and @17mm they were quite soft towards the "extreme corners" which yours samples are not showing. They did look OK at f/11 but still soft for bigger prints. However, 24mm is the lens sweet stop and very good as you demonstrated.
Fred


This comports with my experience. The 17-40's corners at 17mm even at f/8 looked like mush (I don't use the lens anymore). I guess around 24mm it shows somewhat better performance in this regard.



May 08, 2014 at 05:02 AM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password