TSE17/f4L vs 14/F2.8L Lens

<p>I am circling these two lenses for some time now. My objective is a general wide angle prime lens for BOTH architecture and landscape photography. Use on a full frame (5DII) body. I am leaning for the 17mm but have not been able to read any postings anywhere about the advantages/disadvantages, etc. Using a tripod on all occassions. Will be doing HD images. Thaks to all replying</p>

<p>Well, there's no denying the usefulness of a T/S for architectural work!</p>

<p>I actually needed the tilt/shift for architectural work, so there was never any doubt about which one I wanted. FWIW, my personal journey down these roads is chronicled at <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00b2NO">link</a>.</p>

<p>It is an astounding 17mm without even using the tilt/shift features. Truly deserving its L status, and an example of what modern lens design can do at its most sophisticated.</p>

<p>I shoot on a 5DII as well, but also use an APS-C camera, and the TS-E 17mm is still a useful wide angle on that body too. </p>

<p>(after note - I see I did a little too much compression so don't judge the "sharpness" from these small, over-compressed images)</p><div></div>

<p>BTW, you do need to remember to actually focus. The focus confirmation 'blinks' are helpful in that regard because with so wide an angle, details can be small and a little hard to see at least for old eyes like mine. It's also really cool to have automatic aperture on a shift lens after years of having to stop down manually on my old PC-Nikkor.</p>

<p>I know that my answer is not about lenses but I do take a lot of shots that could do with a TS lens but use Photoshop 'distort' and 'warp' functions to get the image I want.</p><div></div>

<p>I learned superwide angle photography with a Canon FD 17mm f4 for 15 years. Once I got proficient at composing effective images with it I began dreaming of the FD 14/2.8 which was not in my budget. During my transition from Canon FD to a Canon DSLR I realized I could use Nikon lenses on my EOS film body until I could get a DSLR. I found a well used Nikon 14/2.8 for 1/3 the price of an FD or EF 14/2.8 and snapped it up. I used it on EOS film bodies and a 10D for a couple of years before upgrading to a full frame Nikon F mount Kodak SLRn body and Nikon crop DSLR.</p>

<p>I very much enjoyed the Nikon 14/2.8 for six years. It did take awhile to adjust to the much wider view and greater perspective distortion. I found the "moustache" distortion of the Nikon 14/2.8 to be a bit bothersome but managed, for the most part, to alter compositions to avoid it. I believe the Canon EF 14/2.8 is not completely free of this distortion either. Staight lines parallet to the edges of the frame and close to the edges of the frame curve, in the shape of a moustache, slightly but noticeably at the edges.</p>

<p>I was fascinated at the release of the Canon 17 TS-E, but being fully tied to Nikon bodies, and with it's price way out of my range, I filed it in the back of my mind. Then two years ago I noticed them coming onto the used market every couple of months, and of course they were in pristine condition being virtually brand new! I realized I could sell all me 4x5 equipment including a 65mm superwide to pay for one. The 4x5 had been sitting idle since I discovered getting film and processing was becoming very difficult. I found a used 17 TS-E for a little more than half price of new, and I snapped it up, without even having a body to put it on. Within a week or two I got a used 1Ds to mount it to and sold my full frame Nikon mount body.</p>

<p>Shortly after getting the 17 TS-E I upgraded to the Canon 5D II, and have never looked back. I don't miss the 14/2.8 since I can shift/stitch images from the 17 to get the view of a fully rectilinear 12mm lens. The ability to shift the lens to correct for perspective distortion in both architecture and landscapes, when not stitching, far outweighs the loss of view of the 14/2.8. I no longer have to be concerned about moustache distortion either. Image quality from the 17 TS-E is superior to the Nikon 14/2.8 and from what I have read it is also superior to the Canon 14/2.8 lenses. I wish that I had been able to take my 4x5 photography further but the 17 TS-E is much easier to use and with the shift/stitch process I can achieve medium format digital image quality and at wider angles.</p>

<p>I bought the 17 TS-E primarily for correcting those bent trees in my landscape shots with the horizon closer to the edge of the frame, and to keep architectural lines straight, but more often than not I am using it for the shift/stitch process to achieve the ultimate in superwide angle resolution. If your intended use is similar to mine then I highly recommend the 17 TS-E over the 14/2.8.</p>

<p>Below is an example of stitching three horizontally shifted images from the 5D II and 17 TS-E. This was done from a tripod, but surprsingly, I have gotten reasonable results stitching hand held shots as well. So this is like having a 24mm x 60mm sensor with a resolution of 32 MP, approximately. Tiff file sizes get up into the 250 MB range, so be prepared for more memory and greater computing time.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a shot taken with the Kodak SLRn full frame body and Nikon 14mm f2.8. Notice the angle of the cornstalks, and the moustache distortion along the bottom (you will have to refer to the second shot to understand.)</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the same field a few years later, taken with the 5D II and shifted 17 TS-E. Notice the vertical cornstalks and the straight horizon line where the corn meets the grass field.</p>

<p>P.S. Correcting perspective with a lens is far superior to doing it in post processing software. I like shifting and shift/stitching so much I bought an old Nikon 35mm f2.8 PC shift lens. I also use the 17 TS-E with the EF 1.4x to approximate the view of a 24mm TS-E lens, and image quality is still excellent.</p><div></div>

<p>Yes you <strong><em>can</em></strong> do perspective corrections in Photoshop, but I can assure you that the results are inferior when looked at closely. Being <em>able</em> to do something does not make it something you <em>should</em> do if you have an alternative.</p>

<p>Although it doesn't show up so very clearly at 700 pixels, my <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00b2NO" rel="nofollow">link</a> has some comparisons in addition to those given by John Crowe.</p>

<p>BTW, I think that the "lens correction" sliders in Adobe Camera Raw are the best way to use Photoshop for these kinds of corrections.</p>

<p>I just spent the last half hour cruising the internet looking for photographic evidence of "moustache" distortion in the Canon EF 14/2.8 (I or II) and can't find definitive examples to compare it to the Nikon image that I posted. I did find a lot of poor images made with this lens though. So remember there is a challenge and learning curve to composing effective images with lenses wider than 24mm.</p>

<p>I have both (mostly landscape, some architecture), with the 14 mm always in my bag, the 17 TSE only when I expect to use it. I use the 14 a fair bit, great lens, very compact, and I can use it with gradient filters. The 17 mm is obviously more versatile, but can't use a gradient filter, and it's a big lens. The 3 mm difference is fairly significant. The shift stitching s obviously somewhat laborious--not practical when light conditions change. I suggest if you do primarily landscape, get the 14 mm first, if you do primarily architecture, get the 17 mm first. Tilt on the 17 mm is not as important as it is for the other TSE lenses because of the large depth of focus, so it is primarily the shift function that you'll be enjoying. And yes, shift is very useful in many landscape scenarios (trees, cliffs, etc). Hope that helps.</p>

<p>These are very personal choices. Use what makes sense for your objectives.</p>

<p>I don't own either of the lenses being compared here, but I do own the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II which is very similar in design to the TS-E 17mm f/4Le. These are very useful lenses for architecture and landscape photography.</p>

<p>With wide-angle lenses, distortion is evident unless the camera is absolutely level. You can eliminate this distortion by leveling the camera and using rise, fall, and shift to fine tune the composition. (Rise and fall are the vertical equivalents of shift, which is traditionally used to describe a horizontal lateral movement.)</p>

<p>Yes, you can use post processing tools to compensate for converging verticals, but after a few degrees of adjustment, image resolution will be compromised. If you're printing 8x10s or displaying your images on the web, I doubt that anyone will notice. For larger prints, however, the decrease in resolution could be a serious limitation.</p>

<p>Tilt is not the easiest adjustment to use. Correct application of the Scheimpflug Theorem is not widely understood, and even for those who do understand it, making adjustments in the field, especially in changing conditions, can be painstaking. That said, when tilt is applied correctly, it cannot be simulated in post processing. Focus stacking will work if your subject doesn't move and the light is relatively steady, but this isn't always the case in outdoor conditions.</p>

<p>As distance increases between the camera and the subject plane, tilt becomes less important. I probably wouldn't even bother applying tilt (or swing) when shooting the facade of a building across the street with a wide-angle lens. When the subject plane is the ground, it might not be necessary to tilt a 17mm lens if you're shooting from eye level. It will help to some degree, but if you can shoot at f/11, the foreground and background will probably be acceptably sharp. If you want to shoot wide open to minimize the effect of diffraction, getting a shot that's sharp from near to far would be difficult without tilt.</p>

<p>As we get closer to the subject plane, tilt becomes indispensable. Put that 17mm lens close to some flowers near ground level, and without the proper tilt, distant background objects will be fuzzy even at f/22 - and who wants to deal with the diffraction limitations of f/22?</p>

<p>For stitching, a long focal length would be better (45 or 90). You'll be able to break the scene into more "chunks" for higher resolution, and there will a lot less distortion to manage. </p>

<p>Lens choice is a very personal matter. Lots of people use fixed 14mm primes to great effect, but I wouldn't be happy dealing with distortion that can't be corrected with rise and fall along with a lack of access to tilt when needed (which, as discussed, it's not required in all cases). If I were in the marked for a super wide lens, the TS-E 17 would win, hands down.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I'm going to throw a hot potato in here! Have you considered the Samyang 14mm 2.8? Yes it has distortion if not used carefully but it is a superb lens considering the price?</p>

I own the 17 F4 TS and 16-35 F2.8 II and have shot the 14 F2.8. Of the three the 17 F4 works best for me but all three

are great lenses. If you take slow deliberate shots (and bracket exposures) then I would thoroughly recommend the 17

mm lens. But it has no AF (focus confirm works but is not critically accurate - for true focus accuracy you have to use live

view and zoom) and exposure when tilted or shifted is hard to nail (histogram s help but it is a good idea to bracket). For

most of my wide angle shooting I use the 17mm lens these days (indeed I tend to only use the 16-35 on my 7D where it

makes a good wide - standard zoom). The other considerations with the 17 are the inability to use filters and the

vulnerability of the front lens element. In addition on bodies like my 7D the prism can foul the lens due to the built in flash

(on my 5DII this is not an issue).

<p>The problem, as I understand it, with Samyang and other "fifth" party manufacturers (Vivitar, Rokinon, Pro-optic,etc, all the same lenses) is product variation (ie. finding a good one), and product longevity (ie. be prepared to dispose of it).</p>

<p>With a great deal of patience affordable alternatives are used Nikon and Tamron 14/2.8 lenses, and used Nikon 14-24/2.8 lenses. I don't mention used Canon 14/2.8 lenses because they hold their value too much. There are several more rectilinear lens alternatives from Nikon and Canon in the 15mm to 18mm range for those who wish to experiment with superwide while not breaking the bank. </p>

<p>P.S. The advantage that TS lenses have for stitching is that the camera remains in a fixed position while you shift and expose the images. This makes stitching easier and with no distortion. I have had some success with non-shift longer focal lengths and building an image with many frames but changes in light, movement within the scene, and distortion become more of a problem. Taking three shifted images with a TS lens is quick enough to avoid most changes in scene/light.</p>

<p>On, another note: Live view provides awesome ability to focus precisely when using a tripod, and I do use it a lot, however it is a pain in the neck because it makes the exposure time so slow. In instances where it will work I use liveview to focus the lens, and then switch back to normal mode for rapidly firing the shutter for the two or three exposures required. This becomes important to me since I do bracket and still want to capture the most effective lighting. Hopefully we will see improvements in liveview speed in the next few years.</p>

<p>Also for the record, instead of getting a wide-angle prime lens for my 35mm-sensor camera, I got the older Sigma 15-30mm, now replaced by the Sigma 12-24mm (also for "full frame"). At this sort of 'shortness' I find a zoom "ultrawide" more handy (for me) than one or two primes. The TS-E 17mm is not really as much an equivalent of a short wide angle as it is for whole different functions.</p>

<p>I still have and use my PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 which works as well on a Canon EOS body as on a Nikon body*. I may get the 1.4X one of these days, since the auto features that are there on the 17mm are actually surprisingly handy.</p>

<p>___________</p>

*that is, it is <em>fully</em> manual focus and stop down no matter what it is mounted on.