This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 201324mm TS-E POV Question
p.2 #124mm TS-E POV Question
RobDickinson wrote:
I went for the 24 first. I'm glad I did, having a blast with it (had it 7-8months now).
Me too. I bought the TS-E 24/3.5L II in April 2010 and the TS-E 178/4L in Nov 2012.
I went for the 24 first. I'm glad I did, having a blast with it (had it 7-8months now).
Me too. I bought the TS-E 24/3.5L II in April 2010 and the TS-E 178/4L in Nov 2012.
Jan 31, 2013 at 02:29 PM
p.2 #224mm TS-E POV Question
Thanks for the focal length equivalents and AOV for three-shot panos with these lenses.
Things become much more complex trying to estimate AOV when doing panos with more exposures, rotating the camera! I just have to make educated guesses, especially with hand held panos.
I really wish Canon would come out with an 18mm f/5.6 that was shift-only and had filter thread. That would be wonderful, and considerably smaller and more flare resistant than the 17 TS-E. That really keeps me for from buying the 17 TS-E lens: bulky size, no filters, and unprotected front fisheye element. But I may breakdown someday.
Things become much more complex trying to estimate AOV when doing panos with more exposures, rotating the camera! I just have to make educated guesses, especially with hand held panos.
I really wish Canon would come out with an 18mm f/5.6 that was shift-only and had filter thread. That would be wonderful, and considerably smaller and more flare resistant than the 17 TS-E. That really keeps me for from buying the 17 TS-E lens: bulky size, no filters, and unprotected front fisheye element. But I may breakdown someday.
Jan 31, 2013 at 02:30 PM
p.2 #324mm TS-E POV Question
Fred Miranda wrote:
On the Canon 17 TS-E, we would have:
1) Equivalent FL= 13mm (Camera orientation: portrait, lens shifted horizontally)
2) Equivalent FL = 10mm (Camera orientation: landscape: lens shifted horizontally)
It's not as wide as 10mm from what I recall. When I did the math the HFOV was equivalent to about that of an 11.8mm lens when using full shift. The calculation is easy but a bit tedious. For the 24mm I agree it's around the 14.5mm mark.
On the Canon 17 TS-E, we would have:
1) Equivalent FL= 13mm (Camera orientation: portrait, lens shifted horizontally)
2) Equivalent FL = 10mm (Camera orientation: landscape: lens shifted horizontally)
It's not as wide as 10mm from what I recall. When I did the math the HFOV was equivalent to about that of an 11.8mm lens when using full shift. The calculation is easy but a bit tedious. For the 24mm I agree it's around the 14.5mm mark.
Jan 31, 2013 at 03:30 PM
p.2 #424mm TS-E POV Question
I believe the math goes like this:
24x36 (35mm sensor dimension) - 43.3mm diagonal.
1) Portrait orientation - horizontal shift.
48x36 (-12, +12) shift
√(aa + bb)
√(2304 + 1296)
√(3600) = 60mm (diagonal)
60/43.3 = 1.385
TS-E17mm / 1.385 = 12mm
TS-E24mm / 1.385 = 17mm
**If you want better IQ and use (-10,10) shift, you would get:
44x36
1936 + 1296 = √3232 = 56.85
56.85/43.3 = 1.313
17/1.313 = 13mm
______________________________________
2) Horizontal orientation - horizontal shift. (panorama)
36x24
60x24 (-12, +12) shift
√(60x60 + 24x24)
√(3600 + 576)
√(4176) = 64.62mm (diagonal)
64.62/43.3 = 1.492
TS-E17mm / 1.492 = 11mm
TS-E24mm / 1.492 = 16mm
The calculator from http://www.cambridgeincolour.com is way off.
24x36 (35mm sensor dimension) - 43.3mm diagonal.
1) Portrait orientation - horizontal shift.
48x36 (-12, +12) shift
√(aa + bb)
√(2304 + 1296)
√(3600) = 60mm (diagonal)
60/43.3 = 1.385
TS-E17mm / 1.385 = 12mm
TS-E24mm / 1.385 = 17mm
**If you want better IQ and use (-10,10) shift, you would get:
44x36
1936 + 1296 = √3232 = 56.85
56.85/43.3 = 1.313
17/1.313 = 13mm
______________________________________
2) Horizontal orientation - horizontal shift. (panorama)
36x24
60x24 (-12, +12) shift
√(60x60 + 24x24)
√(3600 + 576)
√(4176) = 64.62mm (diagonal)
64.62/43.3 = 1.492
TS-E17mm / 1.492 = 11mm
TS-E24mm / 1.492 = 16mm
The calculator from http://www.cambridgeincolour.com is way off.
Sep 10, 2015 at 11:06 PM
p.2 #524mm TS-E POV Question
Fred Miranda wrote:
What is cool about the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is that you basically have access to 14mm, 18mm, 24mm and ~35mm on full frame with one high quality lens.
a) 14mm (2.4:1 panoramic aspect ratio)
Position the camera in portrait orientation with shift left/right which yields a horizontal image (2 frames needed: -12,12)
b) 18mm (Roughly a 4:3 aspect ratio)
Position the camera in landscape orientation with shift left/right which yields a horizontal image (3 frames needed: -12,0,12)
c) 24mm (3:2 aspect ratio)
d) 35mm (3:2 aspect ratio) using the 1.4x extender
NOTE that on a) and b), another benefit is increasing your file size and...Show more →
Hi Fred:
Aren't a and b backwards? I assume your ratio is width:height... but I am tired.
Chris
What is cool about the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is that you basically have access to 14mm, 18mm, 24mm and ~35mm on full frame with one high quality lens.
a) 14mm (2.4:1 panoramic aspect ratio)
Position the camera in portrait orientation with shift left/right which yields a horizontal image (2 frames needed: -12,12)
b) 18mm (Roughly a 4:3 aspect ratio)
Position the camera in landscape orientation with shift left/right which yields a horizontal image (3 frames needed: -12,0,12)
c) 24mm (3:2 aspect ratio)
d) 35mm (3:2 aspect ratio) using the 1.4x extender
NOTE that on a) and b), another benefit is increasing your file size and...Show more →
Hi Fred:
Aren't a and b backwards? I assume your ratio is width:height... but I am tired.
Chris
Sep 10, 2015 at 11:25 PM
p.2 #624mm TS-E POV Question
It's one thing to be able to shift and stitch images from these two lenses, but it's a little unrealistic to expect really sharp images in the corners and edges on either when doing a full horizontal shift on a horizontal images. When fully shifted along the long side, the edges are pretty mediocre. Just saying.
Sep 11, 2015 at 12:35 AM
p.2 #724mm TS-E POV Question
eskimochaos wrote:
Yes, thanks a lot Bruce. I really can't decide between the two - I'm leaning towards the 24 simply due to the fact that it takes filters - WITHOUT modifying anything.
It depends on what you shoot. From my goals and approach I find:
TS17 is much more useful than TS24 for me in trees/mountain area. Shifting with 17mm is necessary to remove tilted trees/poles/mountains that are close in. Whereas the 24mm is generally not wide enough for close in mountains and when it is wide enough, it does not need shift nearly as much as the 17mm because generally the 17mm would be leaned back at 17mm whereas the 24m not as much.
With a bit of degradation, I can use 1.4x with Ts17 to achieve 24mm
So from the landscapse/mountain/trees area, I woudl recommend ts17 first.
However if you are a flat lander or a tilter, the 24 might be better.
The ability to use filters for me is not important. I can achieve ndgrad with AEB/blending and CP does not work on 17mm anyway for landscape because it works differently on each side of the sky (CP only works at 90 degrees from sun).
Yes, thanks a lot Bruce. I really can't decide between the two - I'm leaning towards the 24 simply due to the fact that it takes filters - WITHOUT modifying anything.
It depends on what you shoot. From my goals and approach I find:
TS17 is much more useful than TS24 for me in trees/mountain area. Shifting with 17mm is necessary to remove tilted trees/poles/mountains that are close in. Whereas the 24mm is generally not wide enough for close in mountains and when it is wide enough, it does not need shift nearly as much as the 17mm because generally the 17mm would be leaned back at 17mm whereas the 24m not as much.
With a bit of degradation, I can use 1.4x with Ts17 to achieve 24mm
So from the landscapse/mountain/trees area, I woudl recommend ts17 first.
However if you are a flat lander or a tilter, the 24 might be better.
The ability to use filters for me is not important. I can achieve ndgrad with AEB/blending and CP does not work on 17mm anyway for landscape because it works differently on each side of the sky (CP only works at 90 degrees from sun).
Sep 11, 2015 at 09:27 AM
p.2 #824mm TS-E POV Question
Peter Figen wrote:
It's one thing to be able to shift and stitch images from these two lenses, but it's a little unrealistic to expect really sharp images in the corners and edges on either when doing a full horizontal shift on a horizontal images. When fully shifted along the long side, the edges are pretty mediocre. Just saying.
If you avoid the last 2mm of shift on either end the quality is pretty good.
Photozone.de has measurements at extreme edges that are helpful in considering the issue:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/485-canontse17f4ff?start=3
It's one thing to be able to shift and stitch images from these two lenses, but it's a little unrealistic to expect really sharp images in the corners and edges on either when doing a full horizontal shift on a horizontal images. When fully shifted along the long side, the edges are pretty mediocre. Just saying.
If you avoid the last 2mm of shift on either end the quality is pretty good.
Photozone.de has measurements at extreme edges that are helpful in considering the issue:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/485-canontse17f4ff?start=3
Sep 11, 2015 at 09:41 AM
p.2 #924mm TS-E POV Question
Peter Figen wrote:
It's one thing to be able to shift and stitch images from these two lenses, but it's a little unrealistic to expect really sharp images in the corners and edges on either when doing a full horizontal shift on a horizontal images. When fully shifted along the long side, the edges are pretty mediocre. Just saying.
I will do some tests at infinity and update this post.
The test will have the TS-E 17/4L shifted (-12,12) and then (-10,10) so we can see the difference in the corners.
The equivalent FL will be 12mm and 13mm respectively.
Fred
It's one thing to be able to shift and stitch images from these two lenses, but it's a little unrealistic to expect really sharp images in the corners and edges on either when doing a full horizontal shift on a horizontal images. When fully shifted along the long side, the edges are pretty mediocre. Just saying.
I will do some tests at infinity and update this post.
The test will have the TS-E 17/4L shifted (-12,12) and then (-10,10) so we can see the difference in the corners.
The equivalent FL will be 12mm and 13mm respectively.
Fred
Sep 11, 2015 at 10:00 AM
p.2 #1024mm TS-E POV Question
I just did this test:
TS-E 17/4L shifted (-12,12) and then (-10,10) and then (-8,8) so we can see the difference in the corners.
Here is what I learned from the results:
1) Below f/8, extreme corners look very soft and I would avoid it.
2) f/8 looks soft and f/11 looks vastly better than f/8.
3) So, f/11 looks OK for the extreme corners. It's not great like the lens unshifted but definitely usable depending on your printing needs.
4) Of course (-8,+8) gives better corners since we are cropping the very extreme worse section. I would say VERY GOOD but you end up with a square image. (Almost 1:1)
5) (-10,10) shifts slight worse and the same goes to (-12,12).
I will post some samples, but will do a last test at f/13 and f/16.
TS-E 17/4L shifted (-12,12) and then (-10,10) and then (-8,8) so we can see the difference in the corners.
Here is what I learned from the results:
1) Below f/8, extreme corners look very soft and I would avoid it.
2) f/8 looks soft and f/11 looks vastly better than f/8.
3) So, f/11 looks OK for the extreme corners. It's not great like the lens unshifted but definitely usable depending on your printing needs.
4) Of course (-8,+8) gives better corners since we are cropping the very extreme worse section. I would say VERY GOOD but you end up with a square image. (Almost 1:1)
5) (-10,10) shifts slight worse and the same goes to (-12,12).
I will post some samples, but will do a last test at f/13 and f/16.
Sep 11, 2015 at 04:28 PM
p.2 #1124mm TS-E POV Question
Hi Fred:
TDP finds similar results:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=487&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=4
Although interesting the IQ of shifting up is much better than down. I wonder if your shifts have asymmetry too.
Chris
TDP finds similar results:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=487&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=4
Although interesting the IQ of shifting up is much better than down. I wonder if your shifts have asymmetry too.
Chris
Sep 11, 2015 at 05:00 PM
p.2 #1224mm TS-E POV Question
And, of course, if you're planning on using a 5DS, the difference between the center and the corners is all that much more apparent than it is on a lower resolution camera. The same way that the 11-24 looks pretty good in the corners on a 5D3 but pretty crappy on the S.
What's acceptable to you depends on how you're going to use the image. Online, no biggie, but an eight foot wide print maybe not so great.
What's acceptable to you depends on how you're going to use the image. Online, no biggie, but an eight foot wide print maybe not so great.
Sep 11, 2015 at 05:05 PM
p.2 #1324mm TS-E POV Question
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just did this test:
TS-E 17/4L shifted (-12,12) and then (-10,10) and then (-8,8) so we can see the difference in the corners.
Here is what I learned from the results:
1) Below f/8, extreme corners look very soft and I would avoid it.
2) f/8 looks soft and f/11 looks vastly better than f/8.
3) So, f/11 looks OK for the extreme corners. It's not great like the lens unshifted but usable depending on your printing needs.
4) Of course (-8,+8) gives better corners since we are cropping the very extreme worse section. I would say VERY GOOD but you end up with...Show more →
BTW Fred, Are you testing this with your 5Ds or A7RM2?
I just did this test:
TS-E 17/4L shifted (-12,12) and then (-10,10) and then (-8,8) so we can see the difference in the corners.
Here is what I learned from the results:
1) Below f/8, extreme corners look very soft and I would avoid it.
2) f/8 looks soft and f/11 looks vastly better than f/8.
3) So, f/11 looks OK for the extreme corners. It's not great like the lens unshifted but usable depending on your printing needs.
4) Of course (-8,+8) gives better corners since we are cropping the very extreme worse section. I would say VERY GOOD but you end up with...Show more →
BTW Fred, Are you testing this with your 5Ds or A7RM2?
Sep 11, 2015 at 05:41 PM
p.2 #1424mm TS-E POV Question
In my infinite focus tests, I was surprised to see a noticeable difference at f/16 at the extreme corners. You can see a difference from f/11, f/13 and f/16.
So, when shifting the TS-E 17/4L lens for a 12mm equivalent (Portrait orientation, -12, +12 shift horizontally) in 3 shots, f/16 is the sweet spot for center and extreme corner resolution.
Here are some crops.
f/8 and f/11 (extreme corners with lens shifted -12)
f/11 and f/16 (extreme corners with lens shifted -12)
So, when shifting the TS-E 17/4L lens for a 12mm equivalent (Portrait orientation, -12, +12 shift horizontally) in 3 shots, f/16 is the sweet spot for center and extreme corner resolution.
Here are some crops.
f/8 and f/11 (extreme corners with lens shifted -12)
f/11 and f/16 (extreme corners with lens shifted -12)
Sep 11, 2015 at 06:29 PM
p.2 #1524mm TS-E POV Question
Fred -- Would the 5Ds/R have less corner smearing at the small apertures? Curious if the sensor design would more strongly affect the image on the Sony, similar to the problems with the rangefinder wide angles on the a7R.
Any chance you could do similar comparison on the Canon body?
Any chance you could do similar comparison on the Canon body?
Sep 11, 2015 at 06:54 PM
p.2 #1624mm TS-E POV Question
Jim,
SLR lenses have a telecentric design with zero smearing issues commun with rangefinder lenses.
I tested my TS-E 17 on the 5DS, A7R and A7R2. I have a metabones adapter with very good parallelism and extreme corners look very similar on these bodies aside from the resolution changes. I am very confident that my test stands for the 5DS/R bodies as well.
If someone wants to test it, use -12 shift at infinity focus and post the results at f/8, f/11 and f/16.
Best,
Fred
Gunzorro wrote:
Fred -- Would the 5Ds/R have less corner smearing at the small apertures? Curious if the sensor design would more strongly affect the image on the Sony, similar to the problems with the rangefinder wide angles on the a7R.
Any chance you could do similar comparison on the Canon body?
SLR lenses have a telecentric design with zero smearing issues commun with rangefinder lenses.
I tested my TS-E 17 on the 5DS, A7R and A7R2. I have a metabones adapter with very good parallelism and extreme corners look very similar on these bodies aside from the resolution changes. I am very confident that my test stands for the 5DS/R bodies as well.
If someone wants to test it, use -12 shift at infinity focus and post the results at f/8, f/11 and f/16.
Best,
Fred
Gunzorro wrote:
Fred -- Would the 5Ds/R have less corner smearing at the small apertures? Curious if the sensor design would more strongly affect the image on the Sony, similar to the problems with the rangefinder wide angles on the a7R.
Any chance you could do similar comparison on the Canon body?
Sep 11, 2015 at 08:49 PM
p.2 #1724mm TS-E POV Question
I just found a review confirming the "f/16" optimum aperture when shifting the 17mm TS-E.
http://blog.jonroemer.com/2009/08/longer-look-canon-17mm-f4l-ts-e-lens
He tested on the Canon 1Ds Mark III.
I would also add that this also happens with "Tilt".
The TS-E 17mm is an amazing lens but as Peter wrote, there is noticeable penalty in IQ when using movements. The discrepancy between center and corner resolution is also exaggerated as we shoot with higher resolution sensors. (I started seen this since I tested this lens with the A7R 36MP)
The workaround is stepping the aperture down and f/16 seems to be optimum for even sharpness across the frame. This is a compromise as the center resolution gets significantly impacted by diffraction.
Even 'unshifted' the TS-E 17mm extreme corners are optimum at f/11 with these new sensors. So, if you want to use the lens at 17mm, use f/11. When you need the wider 12mm focal lens (with 3 portrait orientation shots combined shifted horizontally), use f/16.
Finally, there is another aspect that really bothers me about the TS-E 17mm and perhaps others have seen it.
At infinity focus or closer focus, any slight change on the focus distance scale makes a huge change in the overall sharpness of the image.
For example, do an experiment. Find a subject at infinity focus (or close to it). Then live view focus at the extreme corner and check the distance scale. Then focus in the center of the frame (subject at the same distance) and you will see that to achieve the same perfect focus you will have to rotate the focus ring a tiny bit. This tiny difference in focus distance may not seen much but it will throw the center or extreme corner slightly OOF depending on what you focused on. It looks like field curvature but it does not get better when stepping down.
http://blog.jonroemer.com/2009/08/longer-look-canon-17mm-f4l-ts-e-lens
He tested on the Canon 1Ds Mark III.
I would also add that this also happens with "Tilt".
The TS-E 17mm is an amazing lens but as Peter wrote, there is noticeable penalty in IQ when using movements. The discrepancy between center and corner resolution is also exaggerated as we shoot with higher resolution sensors. (I started seen this since I tested this lens with the A7R 36MP)
The workaround is stepping the aperture down and f/16 seems to be optimum for even sharpness across the frame. This is a compromise as the center resolution gets significantly impacted by diffraction.
Even 'unshifted' the TS-E 17mm extreme corners are optimum at f/11 with these new sensors. So, if you want to use the lens at 17mm, use f/11. When you need the wider 12mm focal lens (with 3 portrait orientation shots combined shifted horizontally), use f/16.
Finally, there is another aspect that really bothers me about the TS-E 17mm and perhaps others have seen it.
At infinity focus or closer focus, any slight change on the focus distance scale makes a huge change in the overall sharpness of the image.
For example, do an experiment. Find a subject at infinity focus (or close to it). Then live view focus at the extreme corner and check the distance scale. Then focus in the center of the frame (subject at the same distance) and you will see that to achieve the same perfect focus you will have to rotate the focus ring a tiny bit. This tiny difference in focus distance may not seen much but it will throw the center or extreme corner slightly OOF depending on what you focused on. It looks like field curvature but it does not get better when stepping down.
Sep 13, 2015 at 09:47 AM
p.2 #1824mm TS-E POV Question
Interesting discussion and findings! The 17 TS-E is my most used lens since years and I almost always shift it to the extremes, often in order to stitch images. I do use it for architecture (the low distortion is just great) and rarely for landscapes (to much trouble with flare if the sun is present in the image). My initial tests were similar to the reports here: the unshifted extreme corners need f/11 and shifted f/16 is best for the corners. I decided to use it always at f/11 because of the troubles with sensor dust when stop down further (I'm too lazy to clean the sensor more often). With the 5Ds the loss of extreme corner sharpness is (expectantly) visibly more pronounced. I encounter also the same problems as you, Fred: tiny focus ring changes affect the sharpness across the frame significantly, even with these large apertures. It is also the only lens I ever used that I find impossible to focus handheld, even with live-view. Something is always out of focus, regardless of aperture used.
Sep 13, 2015 at 05:58 PM
p.2 #1924mm TS-E POV Question
Ulff wrote:
Interesting discussion and findings! The 17 TS-E is my most used lens since years and I almost always shift it to the extremes, often in order to stitch images. I do use it for architecture (the low distortion is just great) and rarely for landscapes (to much trouble with flare if the sun is present in the image). My initial tests were similar to the reports here: the unshifted extreme corners need f/11 and shifted f/16 is best for the corners. I decided to use it always at f/11 because of the troubles with sensor dust when stop down further...Show more →
Thanks for confirming this!
Interesting discussion and findings! The 17 TS-E is my most used lens since years and I almost always shift it to the extremes, often in order to stitch images. I do use it for architecture (the low distortion is just great) and rarely for landscapes (to much trouble with flare if the sun is present in the image). My initial tests were similar to the reports here: the unshifted extreme corners need f/11 and shifted f/16 is best for the corners. I decided to use it always at f/11 because of the troubles with sensor dust when stop down further...Show more →
Thanks for confirming this!
Sep 14, 2015 at 04:27 PM
p.2 #2024mm TS-E POV Question
And also it should be noted that once you tilt the 17 t/s-e even as little as a degree and a half or so, the corners go really soft. This is particularly noticeable in a landscape (landscape as in Landscape) where you tilt forward for depth of field near to far. The far corners (upper) are soft while the center of the upper frame is sharp. First saw this on a 1Ds3 where it was very pronounced. Haven't tested on 5DS because I'm fairly certain it's only going to be worse. The 24 t/s-e, on the other hand appears to be fine when tilting.
Sep 14, 2015 at 04:57 PM