I have three TS-E lenses, 17/4 L, 24/3.5 II L and the older 45/2.8.
I seldom use the 45 TS-E lens. This is one of the three original Canon EF TS-E lenses. The other two are the 90mm and first model 24mm. I have rented the 90mm on several occasions and it makes a great product lens.
Anyhoo, I picked up my old 45 TS-E and mounted it to my new Sony a7RII. It really is a cool lens. It's way bigger than a normal 50mm but it has decent tilt and shift capability. It is also very well made, almost like a Canon L lens.
Handholding this lens I started to play with the tilt function. I normally use the shift function more frequently. On the a7RII the tilt accuracy (with focus peaking colors and quick in/out magnification) is soooo much better than when I used this lens with my Canon bodies. There are all kinds of charts, etc, to help determine the correct tilt settings, but the instant accurate feedback with the Sony was great, even while handholding the camera.
Of the three original TS-E lenses the 90 was known to have the best IQ, followed by the 45 with the early 24 falling behind. The new 17 and 24 are stunning though. I think the new 24 TS-E is be the best wide lens from Canon I have ever used. Even without any tilt or shift the 45 TS-E does a fine job of delivering good IQ. CA is there but that can be corrected. The CA gets worse the more the lens is shifted.
I have not tried the 45 or 90. I just don't "get" the need for my uses at least with the longer ones.
I had the 24ii and loved it but it was more lens than I need and I needed the money so let it go.
The 17 is my all time favourite lens and I got it specifically to use with my A7s and (also sold) A7.
I never "got" tilt as a function either until I had a couple of shots of photo art on the ground and for that, the reason for the lens tilting was suddenly a light bulb moment.
I got the 17 and 24 to use for live music full band shots straight and shifted (straight due to having very little distortion and so I can shoot from next to the stage). Like using them for buildings too. I have a couple of other 24mm lenses so that helped in deciding to keep the 17 over the 24 but I do like the 17 more.
A few years back I had do some food photography for a couple of restaurant sites I was building. The 90 TS-E was a fun and useful lens to rent. You could use tilt with different aperture settings for a quick series of different "looks".
Doing three stitch panoramic images is quick and efficient with these lenses as well. Modern software makes this possible without TS-E lenses but it is nice to get as much done "in camera" as possible.
You can also use extension tubes and the Canon 1.4x tele extenders as well, which gives you even more focus and focal length options.
A lens not very often talked about and probably a bit underappreciated. When I would have to choose one lens only for the lonely island, the 45 TS-E quickly comes into my mind. It's just so much fun to use it and it's possibilities are immense. This lens is the antipode to a one-trick-pony. It has many tricks to offer!
And having used all recent and older TS-E lenses quite often (with the 17 TS-E my most used lens ever), the 45 TS-E is the only lens where I use both tilt and shift functionality quite often (the wide angle TS-E's are shifted and the 90 is tilted more often).
I won't deny of course that the 45 TS-E begins to show it's age: as had been said, it has the worst IQ (although "worst" should be seen very relative here) of the current Canon TS-E lenses, don't hold the IQ from the the center to the corners even when not shifted, has CAs and more distortion than I would like. Therefore an update from Canon with a state of the art lens would be very welcomed (40-42mm instead of 45mm would be even better IMO). Until then: I don't pixel peep too much and enjoy the outcome from this wonderful lens!
Great report/review and examples, Ulff! I wish I could give you more "likes" than just the one.
I love this lens also, for all the reasons you mention. I agree about the lovely OOF areas and transistions between planes -- reminds me a lot of some Leica lenses in that focal range -- sharp subject with gradual blurring.
These lenses are a real steal on the used market, especially here on B&S.
Ulff wrote:
A lens not very often talked about and probably a bit underappreciated. When I would have to choose one lens only for the lonely island, the 45 TS-E quickly comes into my mind. It's just so much fun to use it and it's possibilities are immense. This lens is the antipode to a one-trick-pony. It has many tricks to offer!
And having used all recent and older TS-E lenses quite often (with the 17 TS-E my most used lens ever), the 45 TS-E is the only lens where I use both tilt and shift functionality quite often (the wide angle TS-E's are shifted and the 90 is tilted more often).
I won't deny of course that the 45 TS-E begins to show it's age: as had been said, it has the worst IQ (although "worst" should be seen very relative here) of the current Canon TS-E lenses, don't hold the IQ from the the center to the corners even when not shifted, has CAs and more distortion than I would like. Therefore an update from Canon with a state of the art lens would be very welcomed (40-42mm instead of 45mm would be even better IMO). Until then: I don't pixel peep too much and enjoy the outcome from this wonderful lens!
Perhaps the TS-E 45mm gets an undeserved bad rap, but I would still prefer the 90mm because that is the go-to FL for tabletop. My 100mm T/S is an inconvenient bellows lens, but does have rotation on the rear standard. Neither Canon not Nikon have updated their barrel mechanism for the longer FLs. Waiting...
In some ways the TS-E lenses are relics of a previous era where you had to get as much right in the camera as possible. Now you can shoot 50MP loose and crop, do stitches to increase overall MP output, focus stacking to get around the need for tilt.
Yeah, the 45/2.8 has weaknesses, particularly strong CA. But this is one area where modern software has given it new life. It used to be really difficult, if not near impossible, to Photoshop out CA from shifted images. Yet now it's just a click of a button in Lightroom, or similar. Occasionally I shoot architecture and interiors and have put it back in the rotation. I like to get as much right in the camera to save time in post later and of all the TS-E lenses, I will echo that it's the focal length at which both tilt and shift are near equally important. Usually shift with wides and tilt with the 90. BTW, the original 24 now also looks somewhat better with modern software. No, not as good as the current version, but often good enough.
I bought the 45 in the early 2000s before the 50/1.2L looking for something better than the 50/1.4 with the added versatility of tilt and shift. I guess for sheer sharpness maybe the 50/2.5 would have been a better consideration? But the 45 has been useful, if not recently used all that much.
To me this lens is sort of a forgotten child, sadly pushed to the back of the lens cupboard.
Now that I have the a7RII I am enjoying giving all the "kids" a chance. Like many of us I was obsessed with image quality, focus speed and uniformity, etc. Lately I have mellowed and have become entranced with "character lenses", lens that have dual personality, and above all, lenses that are fun. My number one fun lens lately has been my f/1.2 projector lens project.
Since getting the Sony body I think I have purchased about seven or eight lenses? Crazy I know, but I don't play golf, ski or own a boat.
The 45 TS-E is most definitely a fun and useful lens. Sure, its cool to yank the tilt option to its maximum, but doing tilt gently can yield some positive nice looking results in several different ways.
p.1 #10 · Any love for the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E lens?
Some very good points, Ron, about the usefulness of TS-E lenses in times where the effects of tilt and shift can be duplicated with focus stacking, stitching of multiple images or cropping from wider lenses in front of high MP sensors.
Since I use all these alternative techniques quite regularly, too, I more than once thought about simplifying my gear by keeping or buying just a few high quality primes and getting rid of the TS-E's. Instead of the TS-E 17mm I could use e.g. a 11-24L instead with the same potential angle of view as three 17mm images shifted and stitched. Or I can use the 11-24L or an 16-35mm zoom etc. to make multiple images and stitch them together with a panorama software. Or even better: using a fisheye lens (almost unlimited DOF and great IQ) on a panorama head and zoom in in post-processing. With this approach you can shot as wide as a 4mm equivalent rectilinear lens on full frame with impressive sharpness.
So why do I need (or even actually use, with all the other techniques available and fast conducted in post-processing)? My answer for the 17 TS-E is, that I almost always shift the lens all the way upwards in architecture photography (my main focus) to get vertical lines and full buildings. I could use a 10 or 11mm lens instead, but then I would have to crop half of the image in order get the same view. And the means loosing half of the pixels. Even with a high resolution sensor this it not acceptable for me, because I make large prints.
Panoramic stitching would be an option, but it takes longer to setup the equipment on a tripod and the whole photography and post-processing process it more error prone and time consuming. A good option for just a few images, but not for the N of images I often shoot.
The same argument can be applied to focus stacking: it takes a lot more time and hd-space to capture and process an image. Being able to do everything in just a few seconds in-camera is so much easier.
The only advantage I see in an ultra-wide lens instead of the TS-E is when I want to use the whole image instead of only the upper part. Then I would of course prefer the wider lens. Automatic correction of lens distortion is also a good argument for the non-TS-E lenses in these cases.
An argument for the 45mm TS-E against other lenses (+ techniques to simulate tilt and shift) is again the ease of use: the 45 is the most satisfying TS-E to use handheld. Again, all effects are available immediately via live-view and no PP is necessary.
(A side note: the 50 f2.5 may have been a better consideration at the time to near distance sharpness and strong contrast only; the overall rendering of the 45 TS-E is so much better, subtler and with a way smoother bokeh; I never liked the macro).
p.1 #11 · Any love for the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E lens?
Great response, Ulff!
Not arguing, but I will say that I like the 50/2.5 macro for what it is. And the 50/1.2L. Along with the 45TSE in that focal range, I'm pretty well covered from clinical macro to dreamy (or sharp) f/1.2, and smooth and technical 45. Each has its place for me, and unlike some photographers, I'm pretty happy with Canon's commitment to quality and affordability for each of these lenses.
Ulff wrote:
Some very good points, Ron, about the usefulness of TS-E lenses in times where the effects of tilt and shift can be duplicated with focus stacking, stitching of multiple images or cropping from wider lenses in front of high MP sensors.
Since I use all these alternative techniques quite regularly, too, I more than once thought about simplifying my gear by keeping or buying just a few high quality primes and getting rid of the TS-E's. Instead of the TS-E 17mm I could use e.g. a 11-24L instead with the same potential angle of view as three 17mm images shifted and stitched. Or I can use the 11-24L or an 16-35mm zoom etc. to make multiple images and stitch them together with a panorama software. Or even better: using a fisheye lens (almost unlimited DOF and great IQ) on a panorama head and zoom in in post-processing. With this approach you can shot as wide as a 4mm equivalent rectilinear lens on full frame with impressive sharpness.
So why do I need (or even actually use, with all the other techniques available and fast conducted in post-processing)? My answer for the 17 TS-E is, that I almost always shift the lens all the way upwards in architecture photography (my main focus) to get vertical lines and full buildings. I could use a 10 or 11mm lens instead, but then I would have to crop half of the image in order get the same view. And the means loosing half of the pixels. Even with a high resolution sensor this it not acceptable for me, because I make large prints.
Panoramic stitching would be an option, but it takes longer to setup the equipment on a tripod and the whole photography and post-processing process it more error prone and time consuming. A good option for just a few images, but not for the N of images I often shoot.
The same argument can be applied to focus stacking: it takes a lot more time and hd-space to capture and process an image. Being able to do everything in just a few seconds in-camera is so much easier.
The only advantage I see in an ultra-wide lens instead of the TS-E is when I want to use the whole image instead of only the upper part. Then I would of course prefer the wider lens. Automatic correction of lens distortion is also a good argument for the non-TS-E lenses in these cases.
An argument for the 45mm TS-E against other lenses (+ techniques to simulate tilt and shift) is again the ease of use: the 45 is the most satisfying TS-E to use handheld. Again, all effects are available immediately via live-view and no PP is necessary.
(A side note: the 50 f2.5 may have been a better consideration at the time to near distance sharpness and strong contrast only; the overall rendering of the 45 TS-E is so much better, subtler and with a way smoother bokeh; I never liked the macro)....Show more →
p.1 #12 · Any love for the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E lens?
Gunzorro wrote:
Not arguing, but I will say that I like the 50/2.5 macro for what it is. And the 50/1.2L. Along with the 45TSE in that focal range, I'm pretty well covered from clinical macro to dreamy (or sharp) f/1.2, and smooth and technical 45. Each has its place for me, and unlike some photographers, I'm pretty happy with Canon's commitment to quality and affordability for each of these lenses.
That lens combination covers indeed everything in the 50mm range. I used a similar line up for years, only that I replaced the Canon macro with the Olympus 50 2.0 macro (better IQ and a much better build). My 50L got stolen a few years ago and I wasn't able to replace it. It had one of the best renderings from all lenses I ever used, but it was a love-hate relationship: sometimes out of this world and more often than any other lens out of focus (focus shift), not correctable CAs, not sharp enough even stopped down, etc..
I agree that almost any lens has its place, but at the same time I always try to keep it simple and light. I don't own a car and my golden rule is to never carry more than three lenses. Therefore I have to make uncomfortable lens reduction decisions. At least for architecture the TS-E's almost always win with the 17, 45 and 90 in my bag. When I don't expect to use the 90 much, I replace it with the lighter Zeiss 100mm f3.5. Sometimes I also omit the 45 instead. The 17 is hard to replace for architecture; for landscapes I often prefer the Zeiss 21 or Canon 16-35L f4.
p.1 #13 · Any love for the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E lens?
I recently purchased the new M mount Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 lens, mainly as an alternative option when my 17mm TS-E is not wide enough. I am currently testing it using our new bathroom and guest powder room as subjects. Both of these are are small, challenging (glass walls, mirrors, etc) rooms to photograph. I am exploring which "shows the room" room better: single image 12mm, single image 17 TS-E or a three stitch pano using the 17 TS-E? Each option is different. It might be my unfamiliarity with a new lens but I find the Voigtlander 12mm difficult to compose in these settings. Any slight deviation from absolute squareness results in a sudden ugly distorted mess. But there are times when doing a three stitch pano is not the best option either.
I wonder if or when Canon might introduce updated versions of the 45 and 90 TS-E lenses?
p.1 #14 · Any love for the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E lens?
I'm a bit late to the party, so I hope you don't mind me hopefully reviving this thread. I thought about my 45mm yesterday, and this thread is all that came up when I searched for it.
Indeed not a perfect lens, but I really like it. I have the 50mm 1.4 Art as well. The Art has no sense of humor at medium and far distance. Its quite sterile, and for me only works wide open at short distance and stopped down for landscapes at far distance. I wish the 45mm was better, but its just such fun to use, and it can really surprise you at times. Its very versatile!
I will include some of my favorites below (WARNING tilt used!, Some people may experience a headache, whiles others might fall in love.)
6) One of my favorites. Melbourne. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f2.8
7) Portrait. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f2.8
8) Surprise surprise, I'm tack sharp when I wanna be...! Usually at close distance, on her moon cycle. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f4
9) BMW Museum. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f2.8
10) BMW Museum. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f3.2
11) BMW Welt. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f2.8
12) BMW i8 at the BMW Welt. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f3.5
13) BMW Welt. 5D3 | 45mm TS-E | f4
For me its the last word in creativity. I also have the Samyang 12mm 2.8 Fisheye, 85L and other character filled lenses, but the 45mm is easily the winner when it comes to creativity. I hope Canon will bring out an improved version with better MFD and better optics.. would be awesome.
p.1 #15 · Any love for the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E lens?
I got into the Canon system in the 90's because of the 24 TSE. At that time Nikon innovation seemed stuck and going nowhere. Its image quality was barely passable, but on film, it was sufficient for most shots. Later I got the 90, with excellent IQ, and I still have that lens. When the 24 vII and the 17 came out, I was first in line in our area, and shot a lot of jobs with them, and I still have them. The 45 never produced the quality I wanted. After I got the 24 vII, I sometimes used the TC's to achieve 34 and 48mm, and that satisfied my requirements.
Between the facts that digital obviates the need for some of the TSE lenses' features and that I left professional photography a couple of years ago (about the same time as I started switching from Canon to Sony), I don't use the TSE lenses as much anymore. I'm not going to get rid of them, but at this point I wouldn't buy a new 45 vII if it came out any more either. For years I was hoping one would come out, but its time has passed for me. Canon might feel the same way.
On the other hand, the shots in this thread definitely show the value of the lens.
p.1 #16 · Any love for the Canon 45/2.8 TS-E lens?
I have never explored the 45 TSE lens, but I love the 24 II and 90 TSE lenses. Nice thing is that they can be easily coupled with 1.4x or 2x teleconverters - if I need about 50 mm FL for TSE, I simply add my 2x teleconverter onto the 24 TSE lens. I use this setup both with my Canon 5D MkII and my Sony A7R (with MBIII adapter) - I prefer the latter for TSE work.
