What would/do you prefer and why? I am contemplating getting one of these... but which?! I borrowed a 17-40 over the weekend and loved the width, though it definately lacked some sharpness in the corners. Previously I was used to shooting no wider than 24.
24 any day. When fully shifted on FF the 24 can give you a pano with effective horizontal fov of a 14.8mm lens, more than wide enough IMO. The 24 can also easily use filters unlike the 17. I think a 24 TS-E paired with a 17-40L is a nice combo.
I have the TS-E 24/3.5L II, Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 ZE and Samyang 14/2.8 UMC. They're all fantastic. The ZE and UMC have 'moustache' distortion that can be ignored for some subjects and can be fixed using PTLens for other subjects.
I'll probably get a TS-E 17/4L someday, but I'm OK for now. The Samyang UMC costs only about $300 before S&T. It's an incredible bargain.
I have the 14mm II, 17mm TS-E, and the 16-35mm II. All three are killer lenses. I haven’t shot with a 24 TS-E II, but it’s supposed to be unbelievably sharp.
The 24 TS-E takes filters and the 17 TS-E does not, if you think that is something to consider; and both TS-E’s are manual focus.
If your only experience with wide lenses is your recent use of the 17-40 you might consider renting a couple of them (i.e. 14mm and 17mm TS-E) before spending big bucks on something you might not like. The 16-35 II is very close to the 17-40 width but a much better lens IMO.
Sunny, you show-off! :-) I would too, if I had taken those images, they are sublime!
Thanks for the input everyone. I was aware of the Samyang, and thinking seriously about it as well if I got the 24. At that price I could buy the 24TS-E and the Samyang for the price of the 17TS-E. Sigh. Still a dilemma, but an enjoyable one.
I have the same set of lenses as Jim C., and that works very well. But I also like the 16-35 II very much, and that would probably be my top choice for general shooting and landscape. The TS-E's would be my choice for architecture/landscape. My 16-35 and 14 UMC get more use than my 24 TS-E by as small margin. My ZE 21/2.8 gets the least use of the bunch. The 17 TS-E is on my list for future purchase.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
24 any day. When fully shifted on FF the 24 can give you a pano with effective horizontal fov of a 14.8mm lens, more than wide enough IMO. The 24 can also easily use filters unlike the 17. I think a 24 TS-E paired with a 17-40L is a nice combo.
+1: I fully agree. I admit that I never used the II version of the 24 T/S, but even the old version works perfect for me for landscapes. For landscapes I am always with the 24 T/S and the 17-40!
I have used both, but find that the 24mm focal length fits my vision much more frequently than the 17mm. I find this a very personal matter of artistic taste, as the 17 mm focal length will usually include much more foreground. A minor limitation is that the 17 TSE does not take filters due to its bulbous front element. The image quality is both TSE lenses is quite exceptional, particularly the 24 TSE II, which is crisp to the corners with negligible CA.
Another equipment issue is that to get these very low angle shots with tilt you need a tripod that can hold the camera only a few inches from the ground, and very few tripods will do that. The other issue not mentioned in this thread is that while adjusting shift can be done with a viewfinder, fine adjusting both tilt and focus when close to the ground can be really quite difficult. Live View 5-10X really a necessity; I wouldn't consider tilt use without magnified Live View.
Mike K wrote:
I have used both, but find that the 24mm focal length fits my vision much more frequently than the 17mm. I find this a very personal matter of artistic taste, as the 17 mm focal length will usually include much more foreground. A minor limitation is that the 17 TSE does not take filters due to its bulbous front element. The image quality is both TSE lenses is quite exceptional, particularly the 24 TSE II, which is crisp to the corners with negligible CA.
Another equipment issue is that to get these very low angle shots with tilt you need a tripod that can hold the camera only a few inches from the ground, and very few tripods will do that. The other issue not mentioned in this thread is that while adjusting shift can be done with a viewfinder, fine adjusting both tilt and focus when close to the ground can be really quite difficult. Live View 5-10X really a necessity; I wouldn't consider tilt use without magnified Live View.
How easy is it to stitch TSE shifted images, I understand you need to move the camera rather than the lens when shifting? How is that achieved in practice?
^^^^
Love the Crissy Field shot, can almost smell the sea-weed.
I use a minolta Angle finder with my TS-E lenses(for fine-tuning focus with magnification) but FF camera with 60D/T3i style live view screen would be awesome for these lenses some day.
RobDickinson wrote:
How easy is it to stitch TSE shifted images, I understand you need to move the camera rather than the lens when shifting? How is that achieved in practice?
I was going explain but someone else has already done that a while back so I'll just point you to it.
