This past weekend I shot some comparison shots with the 24TSE vs. 24TSE / II vs. 17TSE with the 1.4x TC and my 5D2. I had to watch my two little kids so the test was far from scientific, but if you want to see the comparison, here it is.
My Stanford days are long gone, back last millennium when I was young and still could pull all-nighters. Now it's a whole different story Now I just on occasion use my lifetime account when I need to put up a few images for a few days... But even so I was nice to the server and didn't save them as the "maximum" quality 13MB files. So they were more detail rich, I just compressed the heck out of them.
The 24 TS-E looks to me to have much more fine detail than the other two. A lot more. Am I imagining things, because, if I am not, it is lights out for both other lenses as far as I am concerned?
Thanks for sharing. The 24MKI is far behind the other two, especially in the corners. Its still very useful though, especially for shots that are intended for mass media like web sites and magazines where such details will never appear.
The 24 Mk II certainly is impressive. It's also interesting how good both new TSEs are in the upper corners, even considering that the 17 is coupled with a 1.4x TC.
philber: I think tests by other members here have shown that the 17 holds its own against other great UWA lenses such as the Nikon 14-24 @ 17mm. It certainly loses a bit when used with the 1.4x TC (I noticed a drop in resolution vs. my 24 Mk I), but on its own it is still very impressive and very usable, all things considered. If you need a lens wider than 24 that can shift and has extremely low CA and distortion, then there really isn't any other option...
I am not arguing against the 17 TS-E, by all accounts a very fine, even remarkable lens. I just asked if others, like me, saw lack/loss of detail compared to the 24 TS-E II. If the answer is yes, which your answer does not state, but implies, then all I am saying is that the 17+1.4xTC should be viewed as somewhat less than a state-of-the-art combo.
All the TS-E lens test seem to be done in churches.
I also think the TS-E and 1.4x is very impressive when you consider that you are adding extra glass elements to the equation.
Actually, it is a lot worse than that: an Extender is a teleconverter, to be used with 135 mm lenses or longer. Totally not created or corrected for extreme WA lenses. Unsuited for WA lenses, when you consider it.
It actually is amazing it performs better this way, Extender mounted, than the naked TS-E 24 Mk I.
I did some table top work the other week with my 45 TS-E lens and decided to try adding the 1.4x. Results were equally impressive. It really makes the TS-E lenses more versatile...
Now I just on occasion use my lifetime account when I need to put up a few images for a few days... But even so I was nice to the server and didn't save them as the "maximum" quality 13MB files. So they were more detail rich, I just compressed the heck out of them.
