ISO 12233 Sample Crops from the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Tilt-Shift Lens are up on the-digital-picture.com.

Comparing it to the 24 f/1.4 L II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

To my eye it looks stronger (ever so slightly) at equivalent f stops. But yes, it does not do f/1.4 and does not have AF.

Now the hard part of deciding which one ot buy!

The lack of CA in the TS is very apparent. Wow that's a nice image.

Just for kicks I compared it to the original TS-E 24mm @ f/11... There is a huge difference there.

I think they both qualify to be 24mm kings

I think the 24L II looks ever so slightly better, at least the better contrast is making it look a tad sharper.

I'm disappointed by that 24L II between f1.4 and f2, as it's bugger all better than the mk I, and most say it's much better.

Holy crap...do you see the crops when shifted at full shift! WOW. That's sharper at the edges wide open (by a SIGNIFICANT margin) than the 24 TS-E Mk I is at full shift and f/13. I knew there would be an improvement, but I didn't realize just how much of an improvement there'd be. Makes my 24 TS-E I feel hurt and beat down. Hehe. Better start saving those pennies. I should be able to afford the new 24 or the 17 TS-E in about 15 years.

Jman13 wrote:
Holy crap...do you see the crops when shifted at full shift! WOW. That's sharper at the edges wide open (by a SIGNIFICANT margin) than the 24 TS-E Mk I is at full shift and f/13. I knew there would be an improvement, but I didn't realize just how much of an improvement there'd be. Makes my 24 TS-E I feel hurt and beat down. Hehe. Better start saving those pennies. I should be able to afford the new 24 or the 17 TS-E in about 15 years.

Just wait for the mk III and the mk II will be down to $1K on the B&S forum

How can you choose ISO 12233, mine only goes to 3200

Pixel Perfect wrote:
How can you choose ISO 12233, mine only goes to 3200

ISO 12233 is the name of the test-chart in the images >_^

epuja wrote:
I think they both qualify to be 24mm kings

Agree. Both are spectacular lenses and very good reasons to choose a Canon system over the alternatives...

Heck, lads, it seems that Canon has you by the short and curly.
Checked the prices of 24L II and TS 24L II lately ?

Yup, I am very happy with my 24L MkI. Canon can stick up that incrementally "improved' and majorly overpriced 24L II where the sun doesn't shine.
Thankfully, I ain't into manual lenses, especially not at $2k +.

PetKal, thanks for striking a blow for rationalism. I am a little surprised by the number of people around here saying "Well, why don't you just get the new [17mm,24mm] TS". They are beautiful lenses, but I saw someone recommend the 17 to a poster who was looking for their first UWA lens

If cameras were real estate, it would be 2006 in Phoenix all over again.

joekraft wrote:
PetKal, thanks for striking a blow for rationalism. I am a little surprised by the number of people around here saying "Well, why don't you just get the new [17mm,24mm] TS". They are beautiful lenses, but I saw someone recommend the 17 to a poster who was looking for their first UWA lens

If cameras were real estate, it would be 2006 in Phoenix all over again.

The famous lens collector who owns a pair of 50 f/1.0 among others bringing rationalism.... oh thats just too funny

A professional gambler and a gambling addict can both do the same exact play, and the motivations and consequences to each can be very different

Roslev wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
How can you choose ISO 12233, mine only goes to 3200

ISO 12233 is the name of the test-chart in the images >_^



Gotcha

PetKal wrote:
Yup, I am very happy with my 24L MkI. Canon can stick up that incrementally "improved' and majorly overpriced 24L II where the sun doesn't shine.
Thankfully, I ain't into manual lenses, especially not at $2k +.

I'm also happy with my 24/1.4L Mk I. As you know, it is an excellent copy.

I do, however, fiind that the 17 mm TSE is intriguing. I won't be buying one this year, but I may make a move next year.

Tom_W wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Yup, I am very happy with my 24L MkI. Canon can stick up that incrementally "improved' and majorly overpriced 24L II where the sun doesn't shine.
Thankfully, I ain't into manual lenses, especially not at $2k +.

I'm also happy with my 24/1.4L Mk I. As you know, it is an excellent copy.

I do, however, fiind that the 17 mm TSE is intriguing. I won't be buying one this year, but I may make a move next year.


Oh I know that, Tommy. In fact yours is even a bit better than my current copy.
No doubt, the TS-E 17mm could be fun if it could be justified somehow thru frequent use, enjoyment and/or income it generates, etc. After all, the lens is $2,500 or something like that.....very pricey.

It's one thing to make the 24mm 1.4L sharper all 'round compared to the original, but what I haven't seen yet is how the two compare in real world situations. I shoot a lot of portraits in low light with my 24L ver.1 at f/1.4-2.0 or maybe 2.8, and love the out of focusness of background. Has Canon given up any of that quality bokeh with the newer version?

Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open. So if the term King is to be used Canon is the King of nothing with in a focal length under 35. Truly, the Canon 35L is the King of 35's though .

xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats both lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open. So if the term King is to be used Canon is the King of nothing with in a focal length under 35. Truly, the Canon 35L is the King of 35's though .

Does the 14-24 beat the 24 f/1.4 @ f/2.8, even the mk I version?

Silly Nikon had wonderful 28 f/1.4 that many said was even better than Canon's 35 f/1.4, but stopped making it. It now costs an obscene amount if you can find one. Hopefully they'll resurrect this and add a 24 and 35 f/1.4

I have the 14-24 and I just got my 16-9 adaptor today! The 14-24 is simply stunning .... sharp corner-to-corner with amazing contrast and color. Nikon could sell a ton of this lens if they made an AF-confirm adaptor for Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.

bobbytan wrote:
I have the 14-24 and I just got my 16-9 adaptor today! The 14-24 is simply stunning .... sharp corner-to-corner with amazing contrast and color. Nikon could sell a ton of this lens if they made an AF-confirm adaptor for Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.

There'll be a black president before that ever happens

I too am perfectly happy with the mark I f/1.4 (once I quiet down the "newer is better" envy monster). One of my buddies raves about the TSE mII, but he's the first to admit that his copy of the mI sucked, so a sharper mI might've elicited the same reaction.

A decent 17 prime has been on my wish list for a while. The fact that Canon not only granted that wish but also made it a TSE put a smile on my face. I haven't laid out the cash for a brand new lens in almost six years, but that one makes me reconsider my stance on that. It doesn't pass my "will it pay for itself" litmus test, but some things you do just to make yourself happy, right?

xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open. So if the term King is to be used Canon is the King of nothing with in a focal length under 35. Truly, the Canon 35L is the King of 35's though .

Can you back this up?

I think the 17 TSE and the 2 24mm L primes would hold their own against the Nikkor.

xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open.

thats an interesting comment, quite humorous though. i would tend to agree on the 14mm end, although the 14L II is a fine lens.

SKumar25 wrote:
ISO 12233 Sample Crops from the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Tilt-Shift Lens are up on the-digital-picture.com.

Comparing it to the 24 f/1.4 L II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

To my eye it looks stronger (ever so slightly) at equivalent f stops. But yes, it does not do f/1.4 and does not have AF.

Now the hard part of deciding which one ot buy!

yeah it very clearly looks better at all apertures (once again proving the point that ANY lens does not perform perfectly at f/8 if even the great 24mm 1.4 is still noticeably worse than this other lens even at f/8)

if i ever get the money.... 24mm TS-E MkII all the way for me. At wide T&S means more to me than 1.4 as does every last bit of IQ

PetKal wrote:
Heck, lads, it seems that Canon has you by the short and curly.
Checked the prices of 24L II and TS 24L II lately ?

Yup, I am very happy with my 24L MkI. Canon can stick up that incrementally "improved' and majorly overpriced 24L II where the sun doesn't shine.
Thankfully, I ain't into manual lenses, especially not at $2k +.


how can you of the 10 200 1.8's and 30 50 1.0's
find the new ts-e too pricey?
it blows anything else away