Nice test. I was never happy with my 24 TSE because the CA was unfixable (well they had to be fixed... but it took massive amounts of time to do with cloning tools... omg.) in many of my shots.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I did some table top work the other week with my 45 TS-E lens and decided to try adding the 1.4x. Results were equally impressive. It really makes the TS-E lenses more versatile...
It does work well, unfortunately that lens has a lot of CA, especially when shifted, which only gets worse with the TC. Of all the TS-Es, the only one that Canon could leave untouched is the 90. The 45, for the CA issue alone, is due for an upgrade.
Nick Baker wrote:
Nice test. I was never happy with my 24 TSE because the CA was unfixable (well they had to be fixed... but it took massive amounts of time to do with cloning tools... omg.) in many of my shots.
The CA isn't quite that laborious, but it depends on the image. A lot of times you can get away with either desaturating the areas affected by CA, or by using the brush tool in Photoshop. Set it from normal to color mode (and play with the density), eye dropper a common color of the subject area around the CA and start painting. Another way to quickly desaturate areas is to use the brush in color mode and set the swatch to either black or white. BTW, using the brush this way is also great for cleaning up color moire.
philber wrote:
I am not arguing against the 17 TS-E, by all accounts a very fine, even remarkable lens. I just asked if others, like me, saw lack/loss of detail compared to the 24 TS-E II. If the answer is yes, which your answer does not state, but implies, then all I am saying is that the 17+1.4xTC should be viewed as somewhat less than a state-of-the-art combo.
I haven't yet purchased a TS-E 24 MkII, but from what I have seen from samples here, it appears to be a higher resolving lens than the 17. And yes, the 17 does lose a bit with the 1.4x TC, so it certainly is not as good an option as the 24 MkII from a purely technical point of view, but it can be good enough, it just depends on the criteria. For me, even with the 1.4x TC it is for the most part, other than a slight resolution loss, better than the 24 MkI I own. Virtually no CA and very, very slight barrel distortion with the TC. Therefore, if someone was happy with the 24 MkI except for the nasty CA and more pronounced distortion, then the 17 would be an improvement. I value the 17 as much for being a higher image quality alternative to the wide end of the 16-35 MkII as I do for it's TS-E shift/tilt capabilities. For this reason, how it performs vs. the TS-E 24 MkII was not as critical for me, which might also be relevant to others looking at the 17.
BTW, here's an animated gif I created to show the difference in distortion between the 17 w/ 1.4x TC and the 24 MkI (at near maximum shift):
Considering how awesome the 17TS is with the 1.4x, it serves as a dual purpose lens for me, being 17mm and 24mm. The 24TSE2 is definitely a fine lens. Being both extremely expensive for such a lens, the 17 would get first pick since it does both FL almost equally as well.
I could test all 3 as well and am waiting for the 24 to arrive tomorrow....
I agree that the 17+ TC 1.4 looks well - given, that they weren't made for each other - but:
you can' t control its distortion, and CA is ugly - basically with that combo you are giving away two advantages of the new TSE's... so finally, its's been tempting, nice try - but not a real option.
The 17 mm isn't versatile enough for my needs, having the N 1424 in my bag.
Pondria wrote:
Wow, 17TS+1.4x looks better to me !
Well, having used them together I can't say that the 17+TC looks better, at least not regularly, but it definitely can hold its own (even though poster above you clearly disagrees). My main reason for getting the 24TSE2 was that it can take filters, and after using the 17 for a couple of months I have definitely missed them.
