New tilt shift lenses

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by madza_zulu, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021806canon17mm24mmTSElenses.asp
     
  2. wow the protruding lens on that 17mm, cant wait to hear the stories of folks smashing it up...i bet spendy
     
  3. The MkII 24/3.5L ($2199) is only about $1050 more than the MkI version ($1150)! I guess this was a good oprotunity for canon to raise (double) the price. The TS-E 17/4L will be $2499.
     
  4. I wonder how to protect the dome on 17mm ?
     
  5. zml

    zml

    People who are likely to use the 17 mm T/S are not really concerned with the protruding anything, provided that the lens performs well. (As an aside - interesting choice of comments for such a revolutionary lens...) I'm stoked by the independent tilt/shift rotation mechanism (finally!) and the image circle which allows 6.5 degree tilt on the 17 mm! The 17 mm should be a killer for interiors and I can live with my current 24 mm T/S for less extreme applications even though the amount of CA drives me up the wall!
     
  6. The original three lenses seemed pricey enough ... until the Nikon PC-E lenses arrived. Hopefully, the new Canon lenses will match or exceed the performance of the Nikkors. The TS Revolving System is a nice feature that will probably be more useful on the longer lenses if they eventually get updated (but it may be useful when using the 24 on a 1.6-factor body). It will be interesting to see if the new lenses work with the 1.4x and 2x extenders.

    There is no need for concern that the 17 has only 6.5° of tilt; that's probably more than will almost ever be needed.

    Finally, Canon warn about hitting the prism housing when rotating the lenses on cameras with built-in flash! This has long been a problem with the current lenses (to be fair, the PC-E Nikkors have the same problem, as well as serious compatibility issues on older bodies—and to my knowledge, they don't come with a warning). The problem varies from a significant restriction (e.g., inability to use full rise in landscape orientation) to annoying (e.g., hitting the prism housing while rotating the lens at full shift). I'm not sure this means the lenses can't be used on 1.6-factor bodies, but I sure would want to see how much the movement is restricted before getting one for such a body. It's also annoying to have to think about not whacking the prism, though I'll concede that I used all three lenses on an EOS-5 without ever making contact.
     
  7. Well, they finally got the TS-E lens that was so badly needed for the 15x22mm APS sensor cameras. However, since I only need the shift, not the tilt, I guess the 5D 24x36mm sensor camera I bought last week * for my PC-Nikkor shift lens was not such a bad idea at the prices Bob says these are going to cost.
    __________
    * I point out that this is further proof, if any were needed, of von Weinberg's law that if you don't buy it new, but wait for things to settle down (thus obeying Gate's Law), then something even newer will be introduced exactly one week after you finally buy .
     
  8. A second point, I can't see that this 17mm TS-E lens makes much sense on a full, 35mm size sensor. I believe that this is a further indication that Canon is not likely to eliminate the APS sensor cameras in the near future.
     
  9. zml

    zml

    I can't see that this 17mm TS-E lens makes much sense on a full, 35mm size sensor.
    Considering that for architectural applications one has to shoot with some safety margin (for additional perspective correction in post), which makes the 24 T/S act more like a 28 mm lens, the wider the merrier! Just the other day I had to resort to a rather tall and rickety ladder and the 16 mm WA zoom because the 24 T/S wan't wide enough. I'd say that that's fairly common, esp. in Europe and Japan where interiors tend to be smallish in comparison to the US "acreage" and there simply is no room to "step back."
     
  10. That 17mm T/S is a beauty!
     
  11. Canon is following Nikon and release new TS-E lenses. While most amateurs (myself included) would wish for other lenses my only conclusion is: They probably know things that we don't. There's either a large market for these lenses or it is prestige: If they have, we must have as well.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  12. Very nice I'm sure, but at the sort of price levels indicated, I shall not be retiring my "Mark I" TS24 in favour of the new model. Since it is almost exclusively the shift movement rather than the tilt movement that I use, I am considering whether I still need it at all. The huge pixel count of current DSLRs makes cropping from a shot taken at 16/17mm on FF or 10mm on 1.6-factor (or longer focal lengths if full shift is not being used) into an alternative worth considering. Incidentally, since quite a lot of the cost of TS lenses is in the superb mechanical engineering, I wonder if there would be a market for a much less expensive shift-only version of the 24mm lens?
    What the Canon announcement does not say, as far as I can see, is anything about how these lenses interact with DPP's aberration correction capabilities. Good they may be - and no doubt the 24 II is considerably better than the original - but "we ain't got no lousy aberrations" doesn't carry conviction for lenses of this nature. Trying to do anything about this in relation to tilt would probably be a pretty heroic task. But I don't see any reason in principle why there should not be enough electronics in such a lens to allow it to report to the camera where the lens axis has been shifted to. Once that is known, in the absence of any tilt, the correction processes for peripheral illumination (likely to be very important especially on the 17mm), distortion and CA are only a minor generalisation of those for any ordinary lens.
    We also don't know whether the unofficial compatibility of TS lenses with Extenders applies to these new lenses. I can't image it being sensible to want to do this with the TS17, but there must be many people who, like myself, have created a reasonably useable "TS34" from the Extender 1.4x and the original TS24. However, that was then - film - and this is now - digital - and pretty much the same effect can be obtained by using a TS24 on a 1.6-factor body. If and when Canon update the TS90, it would be nice if they could actually support Extender use properly.
     
  13. Arrrgh! I was hoping that Canon would work on their short end -- but not on T/S or at these price points. I thought they'd react to Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 G or the forthcoming Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, not Nikon's new T/S lenses.
    I'm hoping for upgrades for their badly outdated 20mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/1.8, but it seems to me that Canon's strategy now is to mostly design new EF-S zooms to cater to the consumer market and >$1500 niche lenses to market themselves as "superior" and "cutting edge". Probably a sound business line strategy, but leaves a certain segment (me) underserved.
     
  14. Long periods of frustration waiting for Canon to produce the lens that YOU want, and are certain everybody else wants, are nothing new. Just occasionally they are richly rewarded, for example with the release of the 70~200/4L IS. My personal list would include an improved 100~400 delivering the same level of optical performance as the 70~200/4L IS (that's a pretty popular choice), but I might be even happier with a non-extending 100~300/4L IS (similar to the 70~200/2.8L IS in size and shape, but it might need to use the new 82mm filter size) that worked really well on the Extender 1.4x. My other "wish list" item is a modern short FF macro going to 1:1, say 60mm and, ideally, f/2, happy for it to be L-series, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that one. Many would regard a 400/5.6L IS as a no-brainer, and certainly it now looks very odd to have no IS on a lens that long.
     
  15. all I hope for is that the new lenses drive the price of the older TS-E lenses down considerably. Been chomping at the bit for a 24mm canon ts-e for a long time, but cant justify the +$1000 price tag.
     
  16. "New tilt shift lenses"
    Do I need to sit down before you tell me the price of these lenses ?
     
  17. yes Harry..........sitting?.........+$2000
     
  18. I would love the 24mm lens (and the 5D/II with it, of course) but it's totally out of my budget. It's quite telling that Canon release these lenses as Nikon release a budget 35/1.8 for crop cameras. They must be pretty sure about their respective market strategies, knowing things that we don't, as Yakim puts it.
     
  19. Well these lenses combined with the 5D2 puts Canon squarely at the top of the heap for landscape and architecture photography. I'd love to play around with the 17TS on a 5D2, shoot landscape at at f/5.6 with tilt. Drool.... I better go buy a lottery ticket now.
    I'm bummed there's no updated 50/1.4
     
  20. "all I hope for is that the new lenses drive the price of the older TS-E lenses down considerably. Been chomping at the bit for a 24mm canon ts-e for a long time, but cant justify the +$1000 price tag."
    Hah. If anything, the existing Mk 1 (and non updated) TS-E lenses are likely to go UP on the used market, since the new ones are so much more expensive. There will probably be a scramble to buy the existing ones at existing prices before they are completely unavailable (in the case of the 24 that is). I doubt the market will get flooded with used TSE 24s by people wanting to upgrade @ twice the price or more.
    -Ed
     
  21. Well, that 17 may be expensive, but already haivng a 5D mkI, I'd rather spend my money on that lens than a 5D mkII (like I was considering...)
     
  22. I think I will keep shooting my Arca Swiss, and my "old" 24 tse lens...I personally wouldn't have a use for tilt on 17mm, shift yes. I can see an aftermarket $175 case by Pelican or someone, I am sure Canon will include not much more than the soft leather plastic case. Or does the lens retract like a tube of lipstick? <humor please no responses from optical engineers> Hey Canon, how about a fixed 17mm f4 lens? I can see it now....hey sailor is that a Canon 17mm tse lens in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?
     
  23. "I wonder how to protect the dome on 17mm ?"
    My Sigma 12-24 has a front element like this. It has a HUGE, special lens cap. Of course there's no protection when the lens is uncapped. Even so, I've not found it to be a problem. I would think a special cap could be designed for the 17mm TS that locks into the petal shade bayonette.
     
  24. Since the availability of tilt&shift lenses and full-frame bodies were my main reason to go with Canon a couple of years ago, I find the announcement of the 17mm TS-E the most exciting news in a long time. It's quite simple spectacular and will make interior shots a lot easier.
     
  25. I sold my 24 TSE Mark I one week ago :) I am ready for the new one
    it wil be my main lens on Canon Body with a Zeiss 35mm f/5 when they will do it for Canon
     
  26. It's a funny thing as a manufacturer (not funny as in "Ha ha") that no matter what you come out with you'll hear plenty of vocal folks tell you what you really should have come out with. If you do a 17mm you should have done a 21mm. Of course if you do a 21mm you should have done one without a protruding element. But then, if you don't optimize the lens (which a protruding element may help do, I suspect it's not there for style) you'll be chastised for the optical quality. And on and on......
    I myself often want to ask my customers who criticise "Now how many products have you come out with in your own company?" Of course, they are not running manufacturing companies or deciding what product come out so they have no track record. Pity, they seem so confident in what a company should develop.......
    Getting to the lenses, we all know that Canon's wides need help. Truth be told, until the new zoom, for all of the Nikonians bragging about Nilon's superior wides Nikon wides were not that great either. So, maybe these are the first steps in addressing wides. Like an earlier poster, the TS lenses, along with FF before Nikon came out with theirs (in both cases) caused me to go with Canon. Indeed, they allowed me to replace both large format and medium format cameras for product work. No, the TS lenses do not have full view camera movements, but it's enough for me to squeak by. So, there are 2 of us who went system wide due to TS. The market may be bigger than most posters on this forum would like to believe.
    Therefore, I appluad Canon's releases of these products, provided they are superior to the current optics in Canon's wide angle range. If they are indeed superb performers then for me the $2k price is well worth it. We have to accept that if we want optics superior to the current offerings then they will be much more expensive. Look at the Zeiss 21mm...it was $1,500 or $1,600 I believe quite a while ago when it was discontinued. Now look at the new Zeiss price. It costs much more to do better products. If the new TS lenses are built just as well as the older series of TS then the build quality, plus superior optics (I'm greatly hoping the latter is true) would make both no-brainers for me.
     
  27. Oh hell yeah! I was getting a little envious of Nikon's new 24 PC. And then there are threats of a possible 700x - having just got a 5Dii...
    The anti-reflective coating is just what was needed on the 24 - the "I" version lights up around bright lights really easily. And 17mm! Who'd a thought?
    Anybody know if shift is registered in the EXIF data? That would seem to be pretty easy, and then distortion correcting with the likes of DxO would finally be possible like with every non TS lens...
    Oh, yeah, and make that two votes for a 50mm 1.4L!
     
  28. The MTF graph on the new 24mm is stunning.
    http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=156&modelid=18175
    The front element is 82mm vs 72mm for the present lens. The larger front element and other changes should greatly improve the corners, if the MTF graph is to be believed.
    Canon has apparently listened to our complaints that their wide angle lenses are lacking. The MTF curve at f8 looks like that of an 85mm lens.
    If the lens lives up to its MTF graph, it will be better than any Zeiss or Leica lens at that focal length. As such, it will certainly be worth the price they are asking.
     
  29. An earlier poster mentioned that these lenses could put Canon at the top of the architectural heap. This point is good. Market research can yield results that would surprise many folks. And I think we have to assume that Canon is large enough to be able to perform effective market research. They may well have found out that the type of buyer who buys this type of lens, many of whom might use them professionally, is a buyer who, if Canon can attract them from another brand or another format, will be a buyer of other expensive lenses and bodies in the lineup. To those folks, especially if they are used to medium format pro systems, any Canon lens will look very reasonable in price. I'm so used to medium format pricing over so many years that any 35mm lens still looks like a bargain to me. Canon's TS lenses attracted me, as I mentioned in an above post, for purely professional reasons, and since then I have purchased $30k in Canon gear. The total cost still pales compared to the medium and large format systems used previously.
    Many times I have read comments on the forums such as "Not many people are going to buy a $7,000 body......" In reality, there are far more than folks realize, and those buyers are likely to buy expensive lenses to go with the system, and keep updating the body. I suspect this top end represents a very important, as well as high profit, market segment to Canon. I think Canon is strongly going after the studio, architectural, and pro market in general. The 85 1.2 is other evidence of this.
    I'm not going to complain about Canon's timing of which lenses come out first, I assume they know much more than I do about their business. But from a personal perspective, I agree with an earlier poster, I sure would love a great 50 1.4, but I fear Canon does not see this as an important draw to get folks to jump into the Canon line.
     
  30. Folks, you might be interested to know that when it was introduced in 1991, the original 24mm TS-E linitial list price was just about $2000 (converting from yen, per the Canon Museum, and adjusting for inflation). I didn't look up the other two lenses, but I bet they were similar.
    As far as I'm concerned, the new feature allowing easy realignment of tilt and shift in relation to each other , plus if Canon managed to significantly improve chromatic aberration control, the new version of the 24mm would be well worth $100 more relative to the old one.

    Will I buy one for $2100? No.... But, I'm not buying an 800mm yet, either. That lens started out at $12K last Fall and currently selling for around $10,600. All Canon lens "list" prices gradually drop after introduction. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending upon demand for the particular lens.
    I'm very pleased to see a wider TS-E lens, which will be very useful on both full frame and crop sensor cameras!
    I'm hoping they do some more clever things and keep paying attention to their primes.
     
  31. Many would regard a 400/5.6L IS as a no-brainer, and certainly it now looks very odd to have no IS on a lens that long.​
    Presumably because of the many "we don't need no steenkeeng IS..! " reactions that people post when folk (like me!) point out that one of the many advantages of the 100-400mm over the 400mm f/5.6 prime is IS !
    ;)
    Can't have it both ways, I guess...
     
  32. And then there are threats of a possible 700x​
    "Threats?"
    Does that one come at you with a flick-knife, or something?
     
  33. Not so much a flick-knife as mean spirited taunting. I should just find another way home from school.
    Nice site, KR - I'm anxious to see the gallery finished!
     

Share This Page