Not sure about the sweeping comparisons w/- the Zeiss 21mm. I haven't seem many samples from the ZE version as it's not in stores yet & AFFAIK, mint copies of the CZ version go for less than $1700 (which is still a lot but less than the new TS-E). I think the jury is still out on the ZE 21 vs. TS-E 24 II - for me at least.
globalkiwi wrote:
I think the jury is still out on the ZE 21 vs. TS-E 24 II - for me at least.
Without a doubt. As you said I don't think the ZE 21 is even available yet. I suspect that whatever difference will be minor at f/5.6 or smaller. What will be interesting is to see what the distortion looks like.
In non tilted mode, imagine the plane of focus a couple of metres away is like a 1 foot wall, perpendicular to the direction of the guitar. So all within the wall is in focus, hence in this mode you will only get a small part of the guitar in focus.
With the tilt function, this wall of focus can be tilted, even such that it is in the same plane as the guitar. Hence the whole guitar is in focus.
Neat eh!!!
At least this is how it works. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Tilt swings the focus plane. You get that DOF by exactly aligning the focus plane with the ground. It creates a 'wedge' of focus when laid on its side, and everything from near to infinity is now IN the focus plane. You can't do this too much if you have tall objects close to you when are laying the focus plane flat, because the tops will be outside the focus plane. The wedge expands as you get further away, so you can get taller objects further away still in focus.
Example shot...I was about 4 inches from the leaves, and it's sharp all the way to the buildings. This was at f/6.3. (24 TS-E Mark I) Note the top of the branches that are close are a bit OOF due to the laying of the focus plane:
Jman13 wrote:
Tilt swings the focus plane. You get that DOF by exactly aligning the focus plane with the ground. It creates a 'wedge' of focus when laid on its side, and everything from near to infinity is now IN the focus plane. You can't do this too much if you have tall objects close to you when are laying the focus plane flat, because the tops will be outside the focus plane. The wedge expands as you get further away, so you can get taller objects further away still in focus.
Example shot...I was about 4 inches from the leaves, and it's sharp all the way to the buildings. This was at f/6.3. (24 TS-E Mark I) Note the top of the branches that are close are a bit OOF due to the laying of the focus plane:
It would have enlarged, and would have likely gotten the tree about 40 feet away all the way in focus, but the branches are likely too close to get them tack sharp when the focus plane was tilted this much (I was at max tilt).
Jman13 wrote:
It would have enlarged, and would have likely gotten the tree about 40 feet away all the way in focus, but the branches are likely too close to get them tack sharp when the focus plane was tilted this much (I was at max tilt).
Did you also tilt the camera at all as I think that would also help. The buildings are far enough away that converging verticals shouldn't be an issue.
n0b0 wrote:
Speaking of which, why did you pick the 45 TSE Whayne? why not the 24?
Ah, that's because I'd heard a lot of negative comments on the 24 and the 45 seemed to be better regarded. Also I quite often prefer a longer lens for landscape and on FF I find 45mm quite wide and I can use shift to get a nice pano. I knew it wouldn't be wide enough for a lot of architectural type work though. My experience is the 45 is an excellent lens and mine's even pretty sharp wide open and the corners are excellent for landscape.
I'm am now wondering though whether to get the new 24 or 17, as both look superb
garyvot wrote:
I don't own the 17-40, but the 16-35 II is an outstanding zoom in my experience, and seems to be commonly used for weddings. It's only significant weakness is some softness in the extreme corners at wide apertures, but this almost never detracts from candid photography, and is resolved when stopping down.
For candid shooting, I don't have the patience for adapters, stopped down metering or manual focus, so the Nikkor and the 24 TS-E are simply not options for me. The 24L II is a fantastic lens, but a zoom is often more practical for event work.
16-35 would be a practical solution but for $1600 I rather spend a bit more on a 24L II or 24TS-E II. Or seriously, save that money and go for a 24L I.
I don't have the time to wait for a 16-9 adaptor but for razor sharp extreme corners I'd gladly sacrifice stopped down metering or manual focus. Manual focus isn't that big of a deal at 24mm and F3.5. Focus confirmation works.
SKumar25 wrote:
Really, the 14-24mm (I assume on a Canon), and a 24TSE for weddings!?! What sort of wedding photos would you take with these?
The 24LII would be awesome for weddings, and I've seen some excellent samples.
The 16-35 is prime like across much of the frame on FF, coupled with a very versatile zoom range. It makes for an excellent PJ lens. The 2.8 L zooms are the the mainstay of many a wedding photographer's kit.
14-24G on a nikon or canon would slaughter any wedding. 24TS-E would make for interesting blur effects. I'd use the new 24TSE wide open for photojournalist wedding photos, portraits, landscapes, formals, etc. The list goes on and on.
The 16-35 is a popular lens for many pros and wedding photographers, but that doesn't mean it's a masterpiece. You didn't have much choice between this and the 17-40 for wide angle back in the day. Now that there is a wide variety of better choices, why use the same tools as everyone else?
That "macro" must mean macro photography or close-up photography, starts from 1:3 which is why every damn lens manufacturers can slap the word macro on their lenses with 1:3 magnification. Tamron even went as far as putting it on their 28-200mm with 1:4 mag. Not helping with the general misconception about macro.
Photomacrography itself (or "true macro" as I call it ) starts from 1:1 to 10:1 magnification.
globalkiwi wrote:
Not sure about the sweeping comparisons w/- the Zeiss 21mm. I haven't seem many samples from the ZE version as it's not in stores yet & AFFAIK, mint copies of the CZ version go for less than $1700 (which is still a lot but less than the new TS-E). I think the jury is still out on the ZE 21 vs. TS-E 24 II - for me at least.
didn't the CZ copies go for more ike $3000 for quite a while? before the ZE was announced?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yes and as I said that 14-24 is not very good. I'm sure the 24 TS-E II is better, but the 14-24 has been shown to be sharp wide open, even in the corners on a 1Ds III. Go to www.16-9.net for comparisons. Only the Zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 beat it up until now.
I thought Nikon didn't make "bad copies" of their lenses?
