retrofocus wrote:
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.
I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to explore the issues. I said in the OP I wanted this objective. The reviewer is entitled to their opinion and we should respect that.
The FM lens reviews is not a good place to get info about lenses. This review and most other strange reviews are from people that don't participate in this forum/website. They always have like 0 or 5 posts and have reviews of five lenses.
Why would this one even make a review here when he don't make any other posts at FM? Or the other 17 TS-E reviews from people with 0 posts?
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The FM lens reviews is not a good place to get info about lenses.
I do not agree with this statement. Certainly the reviews here on FM can not make up for detailed technical reviews on other websites, but at least they are helpful especially in reagrd to the cons of a lens. The more people review an item and the more mention similar or same issues, it is likely that there is some truth behind. So far I can agree with the majority of reviewers on FM for lenses which I bought.
This review and most other strange reviews are from people that don't participate in this forum/website. They always have like 0 or 5 posts and have reviews of five lenses.?
Why would this one even make a review here when he don't make any other posts at FM? Or the other 17 TS-E reviews from people with 0 posts?
Yes, sometimes you can see this issue in the reviews here. But I need to ask: do you only want to read glorifying reviews of lenses and cameras, especially of one specific brand? Why not allowing negative reviews (fear to lose sales or own business)? If the lens is as good as mentioned earlier, a few negative reviews won't statistically matter compared to positive ones.
Jun 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
retrofocus wrote:
I do not agree with this statement. Certainly the reviews here on FM can not make up for detailed technical reviews on other websites, but at least they are helpful especially in reagrd to the cons of a lens. The more people review an item and the more mention similar or same issues, it is likely that there is some truth behind. So far I can agree with the majority of reviewers on FM for lenses which I bought.
Yes, sometimes you can see this issue in the reviews here. But I need to ask: do you only want to read glorifying reviews of lenses and cameras, especially of one specific brand? Why not allowing negative reviews (fear to lose sales or own business)? If the lens is as good as mentioned earlier, a few negative reviews won't statistically matter compared to positive ones.
You only have glorifying reviews of lenses here already About every lens that I look at have a rating between 9 and 10. And the scale is from 1 to 10
So if you agree with those rating it's also mean that every lens is excellent & perfect
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.
+1 - even the old TS-E 24 would focus past - part of how they compensate for tilt the way i understand it.
Sorry for the off-topic question, but since you're all here...
When you shoot, say, an indoor architecture scene with the 17mm, and you adjust the lens to keep vertical lines vertical (I'm unclear as to whether this is tilt or shift), does your field of view remain the same after the lens adjustment? When I use my 17-40 to shoot an interior now and then later correct the vertical distortion in processing, I lose a portion of the lower side of the picture (the sides). Would the TS 17mm eliminate this?
I have one. Just think for a minute. No one is commenting on much experience with tilt because it's a 17 mm lens and tilt is to get greater depth of field. It's almost never necessary so I wonder what the original reviewer was doing. We all use shift extensively. I've never notice a problem with the lens shifted or on the few occasions I've used it tilted either.
"When you shoot, say, an indoor architecture scene with the 17mm, and you adjust the lens to keep vertical lines vertical (I'm unclear as to whether this is tilt or shift), does your field of view remain the same after the lens adjustment?"
Yes, the correction is in the lens, so if you get it right, and the right way to do it is to level the camera and then SHIFT the lens up, down or sideways to suit, then you will get exactly what you see through the viewfinder or on the rear lcd. Imagine the lens projecting a large image of what's in front of the camera - much larger than the actual 35mm frame - and you get to move that 35mm frame (the sensor) around within that projected circle, within the limits of the lens of course.
I have one too, and I played with the tilt a bit when I first got it. I don't recall any softness in the corners when tilted, but as goldscout noted you don't need much tilt even to get everything from 4 inches to infinity in focus. Perhaps the OP is using more extreme angles of tilt that I tried.
