dang this 17 is gonna be the ultimate for interiors and landscape.
everyone including myself always wanted a prime wider than 24mm that wasnt too fast and primarily for high quality stopped down shoots. The 14 is too wide. Canon has fulfilled fans with a 17mm f/4 prime, not only that its also a tse!!!
Only problem is that its gonna cost 2-3k, lol...no bueno
It does make a different when moving the lens as opposed to the camera. First, there is a slight amount of perspective change when the lens is shifted. ie., it is the equivalent of moving the point of view ever so slightly. For interiors it is definitely a problem unless you have a line that runs through the stitch that has very little foreground/background issues or patterns that will reveal the stitch. I am being a stickler on this, but it is something to be aware of.
Second, at least the current generation of Canon TS-E's have a little play in them. When you shift the lens you are likely to also introduce a little tilt (even though mine is taped to not tilt, it can still be off by a few pixels) or shift mechanism can also slide a little bit perpendicular to the shift movement. This is not much of an issue because it is easy to adjust. The first problem of slightly different viewpoint can conceivably ruin the attempt at stitching where shooting in close quarters or when there is a lot of overlap of foreground and background information in the image.
M Vers wrote:
IIRC I don't think Canon TC's are compatible.
Actually, the Canon TC's are compatible with the TS-E lenses. I often use Canon's 1.4 with them. Quality is not prime-sharp but is surprisingly good -- but it seems that the TC exacerbates any distortions (i.e., barreling is just about not visible w/o a TC but is visible with one).
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
dang this 17 is gonna be the ultimate for interiors and landscape.
everyone including myself always wanted a prime wider than 24mm that wasnt too fast and primarily for high quality stopped down shoots. The 14 is too wide. Canon has fulfilled fans with a 17mm f/4 prime, not only that its also a tse!!!
Only problem is that its gonna cost 2-3k, lol...no bueno
You want wide, then the 17 creates a pano with FOV equivalent to ~ a 10.2mm rectilinear lens on FF. That is absurdly wide (in a good way), but I would say only a 1Ds III or 5D II would do that justice.
You will get better results using a good 35mm or 28mm prime and a pano head + stitching software than shifting with my TS-E. As said before the lens moves and therefore the viepont changes and you get parralax issues which can take time to fix in post. When a pano head is set up properly these are eliminated plus with good software like PTgui you have the option of different rendering perspectives. Stitching with a shifted 17mm would give you some insanley stretched edges and corners.
shirozina wrote:
You will get better results using a good 35mm or 28mm prime and a pano head + stitching software than shifting with my TS-E. As said before the lens moves and therefore the viepont changes and you get parralax issues which can take time to fix in post. When a pano head is set up properly these are eliminated plus with good software like PTgui you have the option of different rendering perspectives. Stitching with a shifted 17mm would give you some insanley stretched edges and corners.
The parallax issue is easily overcome on TS-E lenses by shifting the camera an equal amount in the opposite direction, which is easy on a long QRP or macro rail. Just make some marks at say 2mm intervals out to the maximum shift amount, on either side of the lens centre.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The parallax issue is easily overcome on TS-E lenses by shifting the camera an equal amount in the opposite direction, which is easy on a long QRP or macro rail. Just make some marks at say 2mm intervals out to the maximum shift amount, on either side of the lens centre.
n0b0 wrote:
Question for the TS-E users. If they can make the 45mm & 90mm with bigger aperture (f/2.8), why are they making the 17mm & 24mm with f/4 & f/3.5 respectively?
That brings me to the next question. If they can only make the wide angle TS-E with smaller aperture, why do they cost a lot more than the 45mm & 90mm? With the telephoto lens, the price seem to increase exponentially as the aperture gets bigger, the 300mm f/2.8L & f/4L for example.
No taker? I guess I'd have to conclude that these new lenses are overpriced then.
It has the same thing to do with why there's no ef-s lens longer than 55mm (and that unto itself is probably marginal). It's a lot easier to project a large enough image to cover the sensor at longer focal lengths.
Wide and ultra-wide angle lenses are much more difficult to design than standarad or teles, utilize more exotic and expensive glass/materials, and require more precision in their manufacture. Add to that, T/S lenses need circles of illumination much larger than a standard wide angle, adding yet even more to their development and manufacturing cost.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
It has the same thing to do with why there's no ef-s lens longer than 55mm...
If I'm not mistaken, there's the EF-S 60mm macro.
jjlphoto wrote:
n0b0,
Wide and ultra-wide angle lenses are much more difficult to design than standarad or teles, utilize more exotic and expensive glass/materials, and require more precision in their manufacture. Add to that, T/S lenses need circles of illumination much larger than a standard wide angle, adding yet even more to their development and manufacturing cost.
I'll buy that explanation for the TS-E 17mm but what about the 24mm? It has the same aperture size as the Mk.I right?
If you can't understand why the Mk. 2 is more expensive than the Mk.1, do a little research on your own. It's pretty clear to me why they are more expensive.
Also, the aperture is determined by the optical design. Scale it up and everything scales up with it. Do a little more research on optical design before presuming they (Canon) are lame by not making them faster aperture.
n0b0 wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, there's the EF-S 60mm macro.
I'll buy that explanation for the TS-E 17mm but what about the 24mm? It has the same aperture size as the Mk.I right?
n0b0 wrote:
I'll buy that explanation for the TS-E 17mm but what about the 24mm? It has the same aperture size as the Mk.I right?
Canon is making a new MKII to be a better lens. It will be priced higher than the current one due to simple costs of operating a business. There is the upfront research and development costs, new tool and dye/molds, new assembly lines and procedures, more costly glass, etc, etc. All this has to be paid for by the dollars received from the sale of that new lens.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
If you can't understand why the Mk. 2 is more expensive than the Mk.1, do a little research on your own. It's pretty clear to me why they are more expensive.
Also, the aperture is determined by the optical design. Scale it up and everything scales up with it. Do a little more research on optical design before presuming they (Canon) are lame by not making them faster aperture.
If you're so knowledgeable, why don't you share it instead of being condescending?
And please, don't put words in my mouth. Where exactly did I say Canon is lame by not making those lenses with faster aperture? Perhaps you should go see your doctor for potential dyslexia.
Nikkor lenses made quite a reputation as lens leaders in the 1930's because one of Zeiss's lens gurus fled to Japan and assembled a team there. (Nikons cameras were not up to snuff unfortunately at that time) In fact, Canon even asked Nikon to make some lenses for their own camera line.
After WWII, Zeiss was broken up into an East bloc and West bloc company. Of course, the US and UK helped wisk away the top scientists first and get them settled in Oberkochen, leaving the lesser skilled scientists left in Jenna. As a result, Zeiss/Jenna floundered and never was able to do the Zeiss name justice and eventually dissolved.
Lens designers at Leica have their own design philosophy. Most of those lenses are designed to have edge to edge sharpness at wide open aperture, where-as all other companies lenses need to be stopped down a couple stops to achieve perfect edge to edge sharpness.
Pentax developed a method that could mass produce multi-coated lenses in the early 1970's. Zeiss wanted in on that, and traded their 15/3.5 lens design in exchange for rights to that technology.
Where is all this going? Lens designers are sort of practitioners in the black arts. One just doesn't press a button that says 'great lens' and one pops off the assembly line. The lens diagrams you see published are only that. Diagrams of shapes. Refractive indicies of the glass, the elements in the glass, the coatings, the degree of precision in machining the surfaces, etc, etc, all enter into the equation. These guys are of an ultra-elite club and there are very few of them.
I'm just looking at this from a consumer's point of view. I don't know about you but I would feel ripped off paying double for less CA and sharper photo when the MkI should've been like that in the first place. Maybe for a few hundred dollars more but not for double the price.
(Price is based on B&H mkI $1,150 and Amazon MkII preorder $2,200. Pretty much double.)
Yes they are expensive but I'm not saying the 24mm MkII is overpriced because it costs $2,200 to buy, I'm saying it's overpriced because the MkI is only $1,100.
If the performance is truly there, I think the price is very reasonable. This is a professional tool, and the price and performance are targeted towards people making money with their gear. Who cares what the last one cost, I used to have it, and I no longer do... It didn't perform (for me).
These are essentially medium format lenses. Have you priced a 24mm mf (or lf digital) lens lately? They cost more than what canon is asking with no mechanics for handling tilt/shift. Lets not even get into the 17mm. What is the widest lf digitar these days? Still 24mm? Unique lens. Too limited use for me, but it would be fun.
