24TSE II VS 24TSE I

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

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
end

Archive 2009 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

ILOVECANONL
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=347

I want one now. Goodbye 21mm ZE distant & gone.

Jul 01, 2009 at 01:35 AM

ILOVECANONL
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

Anybody know of a place which has one in stock? Please don't buy it and leave it for me.

I got my credit card ready

Jul 01, 2009 at 01:37 AM

thedigitalbean
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

B&H had some earlier this week but they were gone quickly. I know it does help...

FWIW, the 17mm has equally impressive IQ.

Jul 01, 2009 at 01:52 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

If I were into landscape TS I'd want the new one not so much for the improved IQ but for its enhanced TS capabilities.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jul 01, 2009 at 11:37 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

I agree that overall the MkII looks much better, and I don't mean to nitpick...

...but on that linked [d-t-p.com] chart above, when both lenses (MkII and MkI) are put to the 8.0 aperture setting, does the top (center crop) chart for the MkI look sharper than the MkII?

In fact, I'm not so sure about that center section when both lenses are at 5.6 or 11, either. Am I mistaken? (Am viewing on a laptop.)

I know that corners are where the 24 has always been most lacking, but I hope there's not a tradeoff wrt center sharpness.

Jul 01, 2009 at 01:19 PM

ILOVECANONL
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

RalphJ wrote:
I agree that overall the MkII looks much better, and I don't mean to nitpick...

...but on that linked [d-t-p.com] chart above, when both lenses (MkII and MkI) are put to the 8.0 aperture setting, does the top (center crop) chart for the MkI look sharper than the MkII?

In fact, I'm not so sure about that center section when both lenses are at 5.6 or 11, either. Am I mistaken? (Am viewing on a laptop.)

I know that corners are where the 24 has always been most lacking, but I hope there's not a tradeoff wrt center sharpness.

Looks similar to me. The center crop from the 24L TS-E I is just magnified by a small bit. Also has a bunch of CA in the far edges at F8, where the new version doesn't. At F8 and beyond, diffraction kicks in. I'd definitely use the 24L wide open or at 5.6 most of the time so I can handhold it and still get insanely sharp pictures. The 24L TS-E I doesn't allow me to do this.

Jul 01, 2009 at 06:04 PM

Tom_W
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

Canon's done something significant with their ultra-wide lenses of late. They've done great at reducing or almost eliminating CA on several lenses in the last couple of years.

Jul 01, 2009 at 10:29 PM

trumpet_guy
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

Canon is getting their act together on wide angle lenses, for sure.
Still, the Nikon 14-24 probably shocked them a bit. I expect Canon to
keep upgrading already good lenses in the short term. Maybe a new 35L,
for example. Time will tell.

Jul 02, 2009 at 06:08 AM

mark1958
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

I know Leslie at Pictureline had one and I was going to order but found another yesterday. You can tell him Mark found one and I am sending whoever wants one to him. Good place to deal with

Jul 02, 2009 at 06:17 PM

jamesf99
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

The mark II looks good, but I don't see it as a real "WOW" difference...

As people have pointed out, at 5.6 on, there isn't a significant difference that can't be easily resolved in PS (higher contrast and some fringing). Will these be as noticeable in a landscape or even architecture? I don't think so.

In short, I guess it comes down to what your specific uses are for the new lens, but those of us that have the Mark I version can take our time for the upgrade. I'm not seeing a huge bang for the buck here and the Mark I should appreciate....

Jul 02, 2009 at 07:42 PM

skibum5
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

jamesf99 wrote:
The mark II looks good, but I don't see it as a real "WOW" difference...

As people have pointed out, at 5.6 on, there isn't a significant difference that can't be easily resolved in PS (higher contrast and some fringing). Will these be as noticeable in a landscape or even architecture? I don't think so.

In short, I guess it comes down to what your specific uses are for the new lens, but those of us that have the Mark I version can take our time for the upgrade. I'm not seeing a huge bang for the buck here and the Mark I should appreciate....

as a landscaper i think the difference is particularly striking between the two actually.....

Jul 02, 2009 at 11:41 PM

rscheffler
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

jamesf99 wrote:
The mark II looks good, but I don't see it as a real "WOW" difference...

As people have pointed out, at 5.6 on, there isn't a significant difference that can't be easily resolved in PS (higher contrast and some fringing). Will these be as noticeable in a landscape or even architecture? I don't think so.

In short, I guess it comes down to what your specific uses are for the new lens, but those of us that have the Mark I version can take our time for the upgrade. I'm not seeing a huge bang for the buck here and the Mark I should appreciate....

The lack of CA is huge and considering how much of a pain it is to remove in shifted images from the TS-E 24 mkI... Plus, if the new 24 is as free of distortion as the 17 appears to be, that's another bonus over the slightly barrel prone 24 mkI. That would be two WOWs for me then... Oh, and how about no vignetting at full shift on a FF camera?

Jul 03, 2009 at 06:07 AM

jamesf99
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

Having not used the mark 2, I'm not saying it isn't a good lens; I'm just calling it like I see it.

CA is not a big problem in my experience so I don't think it's the first lens I'll replace...

Jul 06, 2009 at 04:22 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 24TSE II VS 24TSE I

jamesf99 wrote: CA is not a big problem in my experience so I don't think it's the first lens I'll replace...

I'm sure there is some sample variation and yours may be better than others (sounds like it's better than mine!).

CA-wise, my own versions of both the II and the I perform pretty much like the center and bottom portions of the chart here (mouse over for version I):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=347

Jul 06, 2009 at 09:40 PM

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