TS-E or 400mm Telephoto

<p>Hi All:<br>

I always obtain good advise fm this group so let me ask this question. I have appx $1200 to spend on a lens for 'nature work'. Landscapes/Birds/Woods/Anamials...etc. Which lens should I pick? I understand the TS-E is good for GREAT DOF. But the tele can 'get me in close' to a bird, or as I just learned, change the perspective of a scene. Perhaps the TS-E len's are just for pro's who have specific requirments? Thanks for any help. (My apoligies if this post should bein the beginner section.)<br>

Jim C.</p>

<p>You will need to decide what you prefer to shoot…</p>

<p>scenic landscapes = TS-E<br>

close-up shots of birds and wildlife in general = 400mm</p>

<p>If you go for wildlife and the 400mm, consider picking up a 2nd hand 100–400mm zoom instead. You will appreciate its flexibility.</p>

<p>By the way, what other lenses do you have?</p>

<p>Note, any length lens can be used for landscape. But the sweeping ones are made with wide angles.</p>

<p>The question of what lenses you already have is pretty relevant.</p>

<p>Also the format of your camera.</p>

<p>By the way, there are 4 lengths of TS-E from very wide to short tele.</p>

<p>In all, you're giving us very little to work with.</p>

<p>(After a quick look at your portfolio I see you have 5DII, a 24-70L and a 100/2. If those are all your lenses I support the suggestion of the 100-400 for versatility.)</p>

<p>If you go telephoto, be sure that is something you really like to do. When I was just getting going 32 years ago, I bought a 300, used it a couple of times, and then never carried it again! I was more interested in landscape images, it turned out, with wider lenses.</p>

<p>The TS lenses are great, but with 35mm and the great depth of field due the short focal lengths used, I am not so sure they make as much sense for landscape as for architecture or table top work if you are looking at the wider angle ones. It might be another story if you are thinking the 90mm or maybe even the 45mm. For my own use, I have both the 16-35 and 17-40 lenses and recommend either. Sometimes the 16-35 is all I will use, even leaving my 24-70 behind.</p>

<p>I will add that I shoot most landscape with LF and of course have all the TS movements. These are critical with these cameras because even a wide focal length is 90mm or 120mm.</p>

<p>I have a <strong>5D Mark II w/ a 100mm Macro, a 24mm-70mm and a 70-200mm</strong>. I have to admit I really havn't been aware of these TS-E lens until I came across them in a landscape photo book. How important are these lens to non pro?. I live in a pretty area (The Catskill's NY) and don't plan on traveling over the world to grab senic shots.)<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Jim:</p>

<p>A few years ago, I bought the 300/4 IS and later added the 1.4x extender. Very happy with that set up.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>For the money, you'd be better off with the 100-400, or a Sigma 50-500 OS or 150-500mm OS. With birds, unless you use a feeder as a lure, you'll need all the reach you can get.<br>

On the other hand, you have all you need for a landscape lens in the 24-35 end of the 24-70mm lens.<br>

Now, going for panoramas with large files, a TSE lens is pretty good. I like to crop out a lot of sky and foreground, so I started with a 90mm TSE and recently added a 24 TSE and someday will probably get a 45 for those in-between sessions. For fields of flowers or architectural work, those tilts and swings can be mighty handy, but since I usually prefer to get close to flowers, I've discovered the 90mm makes a mighty fine macro, as below.</p><div></div>

<p>Both are specialty lenses, especially the 45 TSE. Suggest that you rent and that will satisfy your curiosity. Then you can choose with confidence and have the experience with both.</p>

<p>Tilt and Shift = longer learning period + tripod<br>

Long telephoto = extra stuff like a good tripod good tirpod head and a practiced technic.</p>

<p>Tilt and Shift = longer learning period + tripod<br>

Long telephoto = extra stuff like a good tripod good tirpod head and a practiced technic.</p>

<p>Jim you may want to consider a wide angle zoom. The best options are the 17-40 F4L or the 16-35 F2.8 II. I have had both and the 16-35 II is the better lens but it is twice the price and slightly above your budget. Unless you have a need for a TS-E lens (they are MF lenses) or for a long telephoto than I would suggest a wide angle zoom and some filters such as ND graduates. If you do want a long telephoto than I might suggest the 300 F4 IS as it is much more versitile than the 400 F5.6.</p>

<p>Well thanks very much for all the help. Based on what you all said, I think I'll go for either the wide angle or the tele. The TS-E seems too specialized. Thanks again.<br>

Jim</p>

 

<p>Jim, the real question to ask before getting a TS lens is what it will let you do that you can't do now. Tilt gives a wedge-shaped DoF that can extend to infinity. If your typical scene is wedge shaped (the classic example: flowers in the foreground and mountains in the background), a TS lens can be a big help, typically allowing you to open up 1-3 stops and decrease the exposure time accordingly. And of course for a planar subject, you don't need any DoF at all if you use tilt. If you often find yourself needing f/8 to f/16 to get the desired DoF, a TS lens could be very useful. But if your scene has height in the foreground, tilt won't help at all. And if you're currently able to use reasonable f-numbers, the tilt won't provide much advantage.</p>

<p>Learning to use tilt takes a little bit of practice, but it's not all that difficult if you learn the basic principles and apply them (if you don't learn the basic principles, you'll struggle forever). I've known people who use tilt for handheld landscapes, but it's not something I'd recommend—you'll usually get much better results if you use a tripod. You didn't mention a need for the shift function, but if you ever do need it, learning takes about 10 minutes. Though I nearly always use a tripod, it's a bit easier to use shifts handheld than it is with tilt. Of course, you won't have autofocus.</p>

<p>So if a TS lens would address some of the stuff above, it might be worth considering. If not, spend your money elsewhere. If you do consider a TS lens, it might be worth first renting one if possible, to see if it really will provide what you're looking for and whether you're willing to put up with the extra work to use it effectively.</p>

<p>You can't decide whether you need a TS or a 400mm telephoto? This is sort of like asking: "I have $1200. Should I get new tires for my car or a couch?"</p>

<p>How about a puppy? ;-)</p>

<p>Yeah, I gotta agree with G Dan. These are two totally different unrelated lenses. Even more dissimilar than apples and oranges. But for birds, I'd go with the 400mm. There's a choice between the 100-400mm and the 400mm prime or even the 300mm f/4 prime + 1.4x tele extender. Versatility vs superior image quality. Do some research and pick the best one for you. I can say that if it were me, I would get the 400mm prime b/c I have a 70-200mm and would rather have the superior IQ at 400mm than 100mm of overlap. This would be mostly a birding lens for me and I think I'd have the zoom pegged at 400 for birds anyways so why not get the one with better IQ and probably slightly faster AF.</p>

<p>Yea, I'm going w/ the 400mm. I think Canon has one at f5.6. I don't want to overlap my magnification range and if I'm going to spend more then a grand, I want to get more 'bang for the buck'.<br>

Sorry about asking a disjointed question, (apples and oranges). While I'm not to photography I'm new to digital, and had never heard of these lenses. To me it was a question of going wide and straight vs getting in close. Your answers cleared things up for me, and I didn't have to go out and buy another book! (I'm knee deep in photography books!) Thanks again. This forum is invaluable!<br>

Jim</p>

<p>$1200 won't buy you wide-angle TS-E (unless you hurry up and find Mk I of 24mm TS-E). If you get 45mm TS-E but you have 1.6x crop-factor camera, it becomes short telephoto which isn't very exciting for landscapes most of the time. It took me some while to develop natural habits for focusing with tilt for greater DOF, so don't expect magic there. But when you get grip on the focusing technique you'll be very pleased with the results when you'll be able to achieve DOF with only f/5.6 what otherwise couldn't be done without going f/22. Older 24mm TS-E (what I have) exhibits noticible fridging but that doesn't bother me on most real-world photos. If you can afford new 24mm TS-E, or (if you have crop-factor camera) 17mm TS-E, then by all means go for it instead of telephoto.</p>

<p>400mm alone (without extender) my not be sufficient for small birds, and with extender may render your auto-focus unusable (depending on your camera). For landscapes telephotos are more a special-case rather than general-use lenses.</p>

<p>If you want to limit yourself to photographying macro of plants and small bugs, 100mm 1:1 macro may be better choice for you.</p>

<p>/iLya</p>