17 Tilt Using the shift from side to side. I did not shift it to the maximum possible becuase you will see my lights. So it means that I can be even wider.
p.1 #2 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
I like the test - and results!
However, more people may be able to comment if the images were smaller and able to see more than half a photo on the screen. (not everybody had giganto monitors - I only have 2x22" next to each other)
We're not looking for finite detail, so being able to compare two photos on the screen would be nice. Or maybe some edge detail side by side?
p.1 #5 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
Great photos and test shots... thanks for sharing!
I had no idea that the 16-35mm had so little distortion!
I would bet the 17-40mm has much more distortion, and that's one of the key differentiators between those two lenses (in addition to the extra stop). (Sorry, I know the 17-40mm wasn't in the thread heading; I'm trying to decide whether to buy the 16-35mm and replace my existing 17-40mm).
p.1 #6 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
Nice test!
What aperture settings were you using?
The last photo with the 17 looks the best. Notice the barrel distortion in the walls with the 16-35?
The second shot with the 17 shifted side to side is using two exposures? That looks nice without that 12mm distortion look. I guess you lighting would need to be very consistent to bring both exposures together correctly.
I do a lot of this work and I also use the 16-35. I definitely want the 17! It would be so nice to minimize acres of ceiling when doing wide shots.
p.1 #7 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
I get quite a bit of distortion with the 16-35. Its more noticeable when vertical planes are near the lens. It also tends to go soft in the corners. Its a great Swiss Army Knife wide zoom. Its just not exceptional at anything IMHO.
p.1 #9 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I get quite a bit of distortion with the 16-35. Its more noticeable when vertical planes are near the lens. It also tends to go soft in the corners. Its a great Swiss Army Knife wide zoom. Its just not exceptional at anything IMHO.
Do you have the original 16-35 or the second? Here are some shots taken with the second version:
p.1 #10 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
It could be the Canon "sample variation."
I am now using the updated 16-35 II. Before I sold my first model I did some tests shooting a brick house with both lenses. I was expecting to see noticeable improvement but there was very little between both lenses as far as I could tell. The newer one was better in the center at 2.8 but I usually shoot at f/11 with these lenses.
The 16-35 is very versatile and efficient time wise which is great. I just wish the image quality was better. I have high hopes for the 17 TS-E. So far all the online sample images look great. The new 21/2.8 Distagon looks wonderful as well, but the 17 offers that TS-E capability.
p.1 #11 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
PS: that photo you linked to is not using proper architecture photography technique. If the shooter had used a tripod and had the camera perfectly level both horizontally and vertically most of that distortion would have been eliminated. There are additional software filters that will help tidy up any slight distortion present, but its always better to do it in camera. The new TS-E lenses include the tools to do so while providing better overall image quality than the first 24 TS-E lens.
I find the first 24 TS-E somewhat soft in the corners. The Olympus Zuiko 24 is much better (shift but no tilt though.) I do own the 45 TS-E lens and that is a very versatile and solid performer.
p.1 #13 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
PhotoMaximum wrote:
It could be the Canon "sample variation."
I am now using the updated 16-35 II. Before I sold my first model I did some tests shooting a brick house with both lenses. I was expecting to see noticeable improvement but there was very little between both lenses as far as I could tell. The newer one was better in the center at 2.8 but I usually shoot at f/11 with these lenses.
The 16-35 is very versatile and efficient time wise which is great. I just wish the image quality was better. I have high hopes for the 17 TS-E. So far all the online sample images look great. The new 21/2.8 Distagon looks wonderful as well, but the 17 offers that TS-E capability. ...Show more →
Have you shot at all with the 17-40mm F4L? If so, how does it compare?
p.1 #17 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
Thanks all..
Let me see if I remember all the questions
Lighting is Alien bees,
Exposure was 60 F13 on all shots
No Post processing straight out of the camera
I stiched the 17 shift 10MM each side with photoshop
Camera is Canon 5D MK II
p.1 #18 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
Thanks for the details...
I have two White Lightning Ultra 1800's and three White Lightning Ultra 1200's. But lately I leave them at home. I have been collecting Nikon SB-800's and SB-80DX's. I have six of them now. I find these are great strobes for this sort of work. They have built in optical slaves, PC connection outlets and the remote group thing. I find they fire at longer distances than the Canon strobes. I use the Canon ST-E2 trigger to fire them, using Canon 5D (I & II) cameras. The built in PC connection outlets ar handy when extra distances warrants use of Pocket Wizards. The only Canon strobe to have this feature is the 580 EX II which costs a fortune.
The 17 TS-E looks very impressive. I want one...
Max
PS: Cameron12X, that shot was done at f/11 at about 18mm and it was slightly cropped in PP. That image is from three different exposures. One shot was for the sky, way underexposed using tungsten WB. The main one was shot on AW. The third shot was with two strobes at a higher shutter speed to light some of the bush and trees. I then using a quick set of masking layers and painted in the three layers to get the look I was after. My client was very happy with this shot.
p.1 #20 · Comparison between 17 Tilt, 24 Tilt MKI & 16-35MK II CC welcome
These are great examples of real world shooting applications.
I love the extra wide field of view you get when stitching the shifted 17mm shots, but the rectilinear distortion is quite noticeable on the right hand side... See the apparent difference in size between the chairs on each side of the table? It's not something you can correct for, just a side effect of having such an extreme field of view. I would say it renders that shot unusable, but it's only because we know those chairs should be the same size. I think you'd get away with using that technique if the composition was changed a little, because the left side of the same shot looks ok.
haha 