sirimiri wrote:
The TS-E 17 really shines at about f/11, if you avoid maximum shift. I guess I'm a little curious, why are you using a teleconverter on this bad boy?
I mean, if the TC II costs $330 or so, why not just buy a used 1.6 XXD cropper and get nearly the same effect, with the 2nd body?
Also, when I use a T/C, I'm pretty sure my EXIF reflects that? (pretty sure) but yours is still reported as 17mm?
The TS-E 24II is "nuts good" in my opinion.
A 1.4x TC is a lot smaller than another body and provides flexibility when used on other lenses too. The EXIF doesn't reflect use of the TC on the TS-E lenses because they lack the extra contacts required to recognize the TCs. But physically they fit the TS-Es fine and everything else works. Just you have to remember that f/5.6 as displayed on the camera is really f/8 in terms of light transmission.
Nice one Stan - it really does look like a diorama from a scale model catalog.
rscheffler wrote:
Nice one Stan - it really does look like a diorama from a scale model catalog.
Look closely; look at the perspective. The upper part looks like it's leaning right (as if I were standing off-center to the left), while the bottom part looks leaning left (as if I were staying off-center to the right). The two horizontal bars on the sling aren't parallel. I guess that's what I get from maximum shift up, and sidewise tilt... Makes me dizzy. Most "miniatures" don't have strict geometric form...
17 w/1.4x stitched and then cropped. I probably should have just shot it vertically as a single capture at 17mm, but wanted to try the 1.4. It was a good lesson, because using the 1.4x introduces some additional distortion and it was difficult to get a good blend (though not evident at web rez). http://www.ronscheffler.com/samples/1DIV/20100130_0377.jpg
Ron, some of the edges of the buildings look decidedly bowed. Is that just an optical illusion, or a consequence of the stitching or other post, or some consequence of the lens? I don't mean this as criticism, just wondering.
Joe: which images are you referring to? The TS-E 17 does have very slight distortion, which I believe worsens towards the edge of the image circle. However, it's not nearly as bad as the old TS-E 24. I did a comparison of the 17 w/ 1.4x TC vs. the old 24 and this is the difference:
But the 1.4x Tc does slightly increase barrel distortion in the 17. None of the interior images were done with the TC.
Also I can't guarantee that I had everything lined up perfectly in all of these images. The first set above of the interiors was shot pretty fast between a couple other sessions during that job.
In this image, the camera was tilted up very slightly, so there is a bit of convergence of vertical lines, plus, on the right side, some of the vertical lines are reflections, which are distorted by the glass, especially the right-most vertical reflection. At full rez it's very obvious there is a lot of distortion caused by the glass:
In the next image, the diagonal line of the top of the windows appears to be a bit bowed, but on the high rez I put a straight edge along that line and it's straight, so this is an optical illusion:
The thing with the 17 is that it's very finicky about being lined up properly. If it's off by just a bit, it quickly becomes very noticeable later when reviewing the images on a larger display. The problem I usually have with it is overcorrection, where the vertical lines are diverging (top of building is slightly wider), especially if I hand hold. In those cases I will make multiple images, each time moving the camera very slightly up or down to very slightly change the perspective. On a tripod I will always use live view grid lines to get things lined up, then shift the lens all the way up/down and back to see if verticals continue to run parallel with the grid lines. As you may know, with extremely shifted building photos, it's actually desirable to leave a slight amount of convergence in the vertical lines. If it's lined up so they're perfectly parallel, it will actually look as though the lines are diverging (top of building is slightly wider). This is an optical illusion.
Ron
I was referring to your 2d set, images 3, 5, 6. In image 3, it almost looks like moustache distortion along the top receding edge of the building, but I don't think it would manifest itself that way if it occurred, so figured it must have been something else. In the other two, I wasn't sure if it was an illusion from too-straight lines, as you mention.
Joe: I think it's an optical illusion, and too-straight lines.
Yakim: exactly! I actually bought the TS-E 17 primarily to use as a normal lens because I was not at all happy with the performance of my 16-35 mkII at the wider end and wider apertures due to strong and somewhat uneven field curvature in my copy. In that respect, the 17 is much better. But didn't you buy one and have some problems with it, IIRC?
I had problems with a borrowed 17/4 (from Canon Israel no less). I eventually bought the 24/3.5 II as I figured architecture will not be my main subject.
FWIW, I heard that when you don't shift you can use the EW-88.
Hmmm, I hadn't heard that, so just tried it. Thanks!
I guess it could work, but the EW-88 is a few mm too wide in diameter to mesh properly with the bayonet mount. It can stay in place if one jams it on just the right way, but otherwise it's very loose and could easily be knocked off. Tape might be an option except it will interfere with the focusing ring. But I don't have a FF body to test it on for vignetting.
Unfortunately I no longer have the first version of the 16-35 with the EW-83E hood, but suspect that one might be a touch too small. It's the same hood for the 17-40 that a friend has, so if I ever remember, will see if it works with his. BTW, there are a ton of EW-83 variants, though most are probably too deep for 17mm coverage.
If someone really wanted a TS-E 17 hood solution, I think the best bet would be to buy another front lens cap, cut it in half, cut in half a spare EW-88, and epoxy the bayonet portion of the cap to the petal portion of the hood.
.