Dave C wrote:
My older TSE 90mm is one of the sharpest lenses I own, wide open, if not the sharpest.
Do you have a high MP camera? I've read on this forum from a few folks, including Fred, that this lens is getting long in the tooth now with something like the 5DSR, which is what I would be using.
The original Canon 90mm f2.8 TS-E is one of my oldest EF-lenses, I use it for over 20 years now, on different bodies, including the 5Ds and R5. Although the newer L is obviously an optically (especially wide open) and functionally (rotating tilt and shift independently) better lens, I never felt felt the need to update the older lens. It's smaller, lighter and if you really want to change the tilt-shift-orientation it is not difficult to do it with a screwdriver.
Optically the lens is sharp enough wide open for creative portraits with a very nice rendering and great bokeh (I used it for weddings). For landscapes, architecture, etc. on high resolving bodies, I wouldn't use it wide open (f4 is much better, f7.1 is the sweet spot for unshifted use). When I use the lens for (shifted) landscape panoramas, I always stop down to at least f8 (f11 is best for the shifted corners).
Nowadays I use the lens mainly for tabletop and macro photography.
Ergonomically I don't like the short focussing distance on the distance scale near infinity.
Since you also own the Zeiss 100 ZE: compard to the 90mm, the Zeiss ist sharper at f2.8 and also in the extreme corners @f4 and f5.6. At f8 I can't see any difference between them. Both lenses are as good as it gets stopped down. I don't find it easy to choose between these two lenses. For landscapes I tend to use the Zeiss more, for people, architecture (where shift is useful), macro and generally for working on a tripod the Canon is getting more use. The Zeiss has more micro contrast, the rendering of the Canon is more subtle. The Zeiss suffers from much more longitudinal CAs than the Canon. It's the only significant optical flaw the Zeiss MP has.
