Would owners be able to comment on the tilted performance.
If the review's author is reading this, it would be valuable to get their input, especially if they have pictures illustrating the issues.
Please, let's keep the thread objective.
Reposting review for convenience:
"What a heartbreaker!
Before ordering this TS-E 17mm f/4L, I checked all the review sites. None tested its performance when tilted. It looked good by the tests they did do. So I ordered it.
The following results and observations are from testing the lens in carefully controlled conditions on two Canon 5D Mark II bodies.
I have been using view cameras and/or tilt-shift lenses for over 30 years. There are lenses that are optically designed to perform well when tilted and/or shifted. This is definitely not one of them.
The TS-E 17mm f/4L optically turns to junk when tilted. Tilted as little as 1 degree, the image quality visibly deteriorates, and it is only useable tilted up to 2 degrees. When tilted 3 degrees or more, the image quality becomes bad beyond belief (for a Canon L lens that is designed, marketed, and sold as a TS lens).
If you absolutely MUST use this lens in tilted mode, just know that you must stop down to f22, use a lot of software sharpening, and know that your final image size will only look acceptable up to maybe 4x6".
When UNTILTED, this lens performs amazingly well for a 17mm rectilinear lens, with very little geometric distortion and chromatic aberration. At f4, the corners are a little soft, but with selective software sharpening and vignetting compensation, a usable image can be created. f5.6 is very good, and f8-11 creates images that need no help at all. Very nice and amazing for a 17mm rectilinear lens!
Its shifted performance is mediocre, as the outer edges of the image circle deteriorate in quality. If you shift only a few millimeters and stop down to f11-16, you can come away with an acceptable image.
So here's the bottom line. If Canon chose to sell this glass as a 17mm rectilinear wide-angle lens, it would be a masterpiece, or close to it. If they chose to put it in a mount that allowed shifts of just a few mm, it would be nice. But when packaged in a mount that allows tilts, it becomes a major disappointment and a real black-eye for Canon. Canon needs to hire someone from Schneider or Rodenstock to learn how to create glass that can be tilted, because this lens doesn't even come close. The lens feels and looks nice, and operates smoothly. But all for naught.
I've never used it but that sounds hard to believe! Who would go using f/22 at major tilt so would they really design it to be junk unless you do that? SOmething doesn't make sense here.
I've not done too much tilt, but I've used extremes of shift with little quality loss in the corners - some vignetting wide open, but I usually shoot at f/8 - f/11
Had mine for about 6 months love it.
And i use tilt and shift and also tilt and shift seperately.
No probs what soever other than that scary big element out the front.
I noticed that quite a bit reviewers do not have many posts. This particular reviewer has a total 2 posts and some actually do not have any track record. While I understand that the number of posts doesn't have any direct relation to the skill of the reviewer but there are a lot of folks that apparently do not bother posting anywhere else in the forum except for in the review section. Some slammed some lenses really hard and others ranked a few lenses and gave them a "10" without much explanation; practically nothing in between. I don't know what to make out of the review section but mostly I rely more on reviewers with familiar names.
Further down there is a review from ViscaB. He posted great images from Hong Kong taken with this lens. FYI, he gave this lens a "10". BTW, mine performs just fine, as well .
The number of posts have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the review or the reviewer. The reviewer is entirely correct. I've written many times about the less than stellar performance of this lens in the corners when tilted. I first noticed it when doing a shot of lettuce fields in Salinas. The camera was about thirty inches off the ground, the lens tilted about 2-1/2 degrees downward with careful Live View focusing triple checking foreground and background focus wide open, and the upper corners are soft at f/11. I've shot large format view cameras with Super Angulons for decades and have never seen this at all. As a straight shift lens, it rocks, and with a tilt of one degree or less, it seems to be fine, but more tilt and it falls apart. And, yes, I have a very very good copy.
I'm thinking that it might have something to do with the incredible complexity of the lens - a retrofocus wideangle with no less than two separate floating elements. You get that lens off axis and the image quality quickly degrades, where a much simpler true wideangle like a Super Angulon, which has no floating elements and a modified symmetrical design really shines.
I have had great luck with my Canon 17mm T-SE L lens, so I would generally disagree with any negative review. One very important thing to understand about the 17mm focal length for tilting is that very little tilt is required to achieve focus on a subject plane. When you lens is about 18 inches from the plane of focus you are trying to match, around 2 degrees of tilt is the right theoretical tilt. This is in contrast to the larger tilt you would need on a view camera where focal lengths go from 50 to 100 mm for a wide angle lens. The reviewer stated his past experience with a view camera, so perhaps over tilting for the scene could explain his problems. Of course it is also possible that he has a problem with the particular lens he recieved, but almost everyone that owns a 17mm TS-E loves it.
For those that don't understand, the Scheimpflug effect - the theory that governs how much tilt is required to affect the plane of focus, is exactly the same for an 11x14 view camera as it is for a 35mm tilt-shift, and the original poster, as well as myself noted that with even fairly small tilts, the corner performance falls off dramatically. A 2 to 1-1/2 degree tilt, the kind required for near/far focus with the camera tilted down slightly and a couple feet off the ground, results in soft corners at f/11. These aren't defective lenses or the proverbial bad copies. This is part of the design of the lens and anyone who wants to use it for that type of imagery should be aware of that limitation. The best ever copy of the 17 T/S is going to do the same thing.
That does not, however, take away from how fantastic this lens is for everything else - well, just as long as you don't do a full horizontal shift on a horizontal full frame image. I would not trade this lens for anything. I just know its limitations and flaws and don't deny them like a lot of folks, who, apparently haven't actually used the lens in ways that show off what we're seeing.
I own the TS-E 17 and never use tilt so I can comment on that.
I can comment on the following: "Its shifted performance is mediocre, as the outer edges of the image circle deteriorate in quality. If you shift only a few millimeters and stop down to f11-16, you can come away with an acceptable image".
I don't understand this statement. In my experience the performance when shifted is very good. When fully shifted stopping down to f/16 I find the corners are still good. Which is quite an achievement considering the huge image circle. Much better than the 17-40 non-shifted for example. It's logical that the outer edges deteriorate but stopping down for the most part can counter this.
After extensive use I have learned the major drawback of this lens is that it's not that great at infinity. Maybe somebody here could explain why that could be. My TSE 24 II smokes it at infinity while I find they are much closer when I photograph objects nearer by.
Are you using Live View focusing for both of your lenses? Both of these lenses focus well past infinity and are very particular about exact focus. My 17 T/S is very very sharp at infinity, even wide open. If yours isn't, it may indeed may be a rare one needing alignment at Canon. Also, just making sure that your tilt lock is in place, as even the very slightest degree of inadvertent tilt or swing can screw your focus all up.
Are you using Live View focusing for both of your lenses? Both of these lenses focus well past infinity and are very particular about exact focus. My 17 T/S is very very sharp at infinity, even wide open. If yours isn't, it may indeed may be a rare one needing alignment at Canon. Also, just making sure that your tilt lock is in place, as even the very slightest degree of inadvertent tilt or swing can screw your focus all up.
Thx a lot for the answer. I always use live view and am extremely wary of the tilt (learned it the hard way!). I think the lens is fine as I recently had it checked when they replaced the shift mechanism.
Maybe my expectations are just too high because 90% of the cases I stitch images which obviously leads to superior detail and "corner performance". But that the 24 is sharper seems to be the general consensus.
AGeoJO wrote:
I don't know what to make out of the review section but mostly I rely more on reviewers with familiar names.
I give more weightage to a 'regular' review than an individual FM review for a lens, but I find the entire set of FM reviews to be very useful. For me it is another check in my decision making process.
Had the reviewer given a 3/10 with no reasoning I would have disregarded the review. But the reviewer mentioned certain weaknesses I thought would be worth discussing.
AGeoJO wrote:
Further down there is a review from ViscaB. He posted great images from Hong Kong taken with this lens. FYI, he gave this lens a "10". BTW, mine performs just fine, as well .
Can you believe those actually piqued my interest in this lens!
Note for the 17 TSE, at about 5-6ft off the ground, 1 deg of tilt is going to be more than enough (too much?) to get the ground plane sharp from near to infinity.
Skumar25: why don't you contact the poster directly via email instead of posting somebody's personal opinion and review here? Doesn't sound fair to me.
.