17-40: cheap and soft corners.
16-35II: expensive and soft corners.
14II: great but may have to walk for miles to "zoom with feet".
17TS-E: wrong lens for landscape, photos look ugly.
Nikon 14-24: ideal, but can't even focus...and taking off the rubber seal...
Since all have problems, why not simply buy the cheapest.
I suggest getting a second hand tamron 17-35 for $200.
.
jffielde: Thank you for all you input here. Much appreciated. Scott
ViscaB: I hope you are right. Thanks Scott
saneproduction:Thanks. I it looks good. Scott
unLin: I think if you look at The-digital-picture you would see that even if lens are softer on the edges they are not unreasonably soft whereas a cheap tamron is soft everywhere. I will try to prove you wrong on the tilt shift with some pictures. Thanks Scott
Saneproduction: re decent with 1.4 at f11, Great I have 4 lens in one - 17 (on 5dii), 24mm (17w 1.4 on 5dii), 27mm (17x1.6 on 7d), and 38mm (17x1.4x1.6 on 7d). Thanks. Scott
Scott Stoness wrote:
Saneproduction: re decent with 1.4 at f11, Great I have 4 lens in one - 17 (on 5dii), 24mm (17w 1.4 on 5dii), 27mm (17x1.6 on 7d), and 38mm (17x1.4x1.6 on 7d). Thanks. Scott
Even more since you can shift and stitch! Both upward and downward, or left and right. And with the camera in horizontal position or vertical position.
I put examples of the different stitching options on my flickr with a video and 4 piratical examples underneath.
Scott,
all my recent work (landscape forum) from DV is with the 17Tse and the 24Tse...99% of it...3 shot panos created using those 2 lenses by shifting etc.
Sunny: Those shots are great. Its good to see that the TS works so well. I think the tilt shift will take me some time to learn but when I get it, it will be great.
I just need to figure out how to do it in the warmth before I had to vermillion lake at -35. Good thing the wife is booking a trip to Hawaii.
Sunny Sra wrote:
all my recent work (landscape forum) from DV is with the 17Tse and the 24Tse...99% of it...3 shot panos created using those 2 lenses by shifting etc.
Sunny,
Very nice 17 TSE shots. Certainly a much broader fov than I could get with my 24 TSE.
With the vertical panos are you counter shifting the camera body while vertically shifting the lens? There is quite a distance change and an opportunity for parallax changes without counter shifting? I presume the tilt angle is static between the vertical stitched shots?
Mike K
Mike K wrote:
Sunny,
Very nice 17 TSE shots. Certainly a much broader fov than I could get with my 24 TSE.
With the vertical panos are you counter shifting the camera body while vertically shifting the lens? There is quite a distance change and an opportunity for parallax changes without counter shifting? I presume the tilt angle is static between the vertical stitched shots?
Mike K
If he fully shifted (12mm) and didn't crop, that is a 13mm focal length and he got a 42MP file! That would make a very nice print. Did you print any these photos Sunny? They are outstanding! Love the colors. The only advise would be to fix the vignette and level the horizon.
From my own tests, the 17mm TSE fully shifted looses noticeable resolution at the edges. But we are pushing the limits here. I would stay between 8mm to 10mm max.
At 10mm shift, it becomes a 14mm shot with great quality and enough pixels.
So, the 17TSE is a great choice. Flare is an issue though.
At this point, Scott already got the 17TSE and is producing great shots.
For ultra-wide and wide angle landscape, I currently like the following combination: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 (it's unbelievable good and affordable) and Canon 24mm f/3.5L TSE II.
I personally like the 24mm angle of view for most landscapes with the versatility of shift for perspective control + wider stitched shots and tilt for focal plane control.
Whenever the composition calls for an "ultra" wide lens, just grab the 14mm. Add the excellent Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS to the mix and you have a very light 3-lens-do-it-all.
Ha Ha Ha ... I can relate to this, so I sold my Nikon and got myself a 17-40L and my keeper rate has gone up exponentially. As a matter of fact, I use my 17-40L more than 24L II so I don't have to zoom with my feet and risk falling off a cliff.
unLin wrote:
17-40: cheap and soft corners.
16-35II: expensive and soft corners.
14II: great but may have to walk for miles to "zoom with feet".
17TS-E: wrong lens for landscape, photos look ugly.
Nikon 14-24: ideal, but can't even focus...and taking off the rubber seal...
Since all have problems, why not simply buy the cheapest.
I suggest getting a second hand tamron 17-35 for $200.
.
Jan 15, 2012 at 03:08 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Interesting thread showing what the 17 and 24 t/s can do on a IQ180 digital back (80 megapixels). As well as shots with those lenses and the Nikon 14-24 on a 40 megapixel back.
) 
.