Going Wiiide -- Which Lens?

[aaron_johnston]

My wife and I have decided to add another wide-angle EF lens to our arsenal. We

own the 24mm f1.4L and want something just as wide (or wider) that will also

expand our options. I use a 5D and she is planning on getting one at some point

to (right now she shoots a Rebel XT.)

 

These are our choices:

 

14mm f2.8L: We own a Voigtlander 15mm M lens and love it. I understand this lens

has edge softness issues and seems to get mixed reviews. We figure we know when

and where to use it based on our use of the Voigtlander 15mm but we've read so

many conflicting reviews that we're not quite sure. Uses would be for

ultra-closeup images and landscape/architecture. We understand it excels at

certain things and should not be used for others. Still, $1800 is a bargain for

a truly well corrected lens at this focal length. The issue: is it truly well

corrected?

 

24mm TS-E L: We know nothing about how to use a tilt shift but we own a tripod

and are willing to learn. We worry that we won't "get" the tilt shift concept or

that, once we do, we won't really find it that useful. We're not pros but the

idea of owning a unique lens such as this is intriguing. Is it a waste to invest

in something like this if we're basically just messing around? We're open to

wildly creative possibilities but are nonetheless technical amateurs.

 

16-35mm L: I tried one of these and found it to be really inconsistant.

Sometimes images were sharp, sometimes they were soft. I have heard that this

lens suffers from sample variation issues and that there are quite a few lemons

floating around. Still, I think this would be the most versatile lens for our

needs if only I could get over this mistrust I have over the quality control at

Canon.

 

Any feedback or opinions would be more than welcome. We've done a lot of

research and have definitely narrowed it to these three lenses so

recommendations of other lenses may not be that helpful.

[jimstrutz]

How about an adapter (Leica M to EF right?) for the 15mm lens you have? It should work well, although you will have to manually focus and meter stopped down. Then you could buy the 24mm TS-E with the remaining funds.

 

You can duplicate perspective changes of the shift functions in software with minimal quality loss, but duplicating the selective focus of lens tilt is another matter.

[tommyinca]

Here is one opinion (for full frame), all need EOS adapter.

 

a. Big spending. Zeiss 21mm f2.8.

 

b. Down to earth spending. Olympus 21mm/f2.

 

c. Vaule Spending. Nikon 20/f2.8

 

d. Bargin Basement Carl Zeiss Jena 20mm/f4 (stop it down)

 

Disclaimer: I never tried "a".

[tommyinca]

There are no Leica M to EOS adapter unless you want to use it an macro lens. For 15mm, you need to revesre it.

[aaron_johnston]

Thanks but we're looking to get one of the above EF lenses.

[calebcondit]

you should consider the 17-40 f4 if you want a zoom- less money and better except in the speed division.

 

the Ts lense could be a lot of fun due to the selective focus- IE portraits where only a head is in focus and the body out of focus. While not essential, it does give you control like no other lens does. I think I would go for the 24mm ts-e L series.

 

I would really recommend trying to rent it first if available and find out if you like it. Everyone has different lenses they use and like more than others.

 

I love my 24-70 f2.8 zoom (rivals my primes, actually it beats them), but like to take my 20mm non L out when I go to bars or need the extra bit- its definitely a bargain if you get it used (around 300 dollars).

 

I can't answer this for you, but I would stay away from zooms in the wide angles as canon isn't that great at making them consistently sharp. The 14mm is VERY wide and distorts a decent amount. I rented it for a job and just put it back in its bag after a few shots. It was too extreme for the situation (maybe better for others).

 

So thats not exactly conclusive, but my thoughts on this.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I haven't used any of the above lenses so I may not be much use here. My widest lens is the 17-40/4. Different comparisons of the 17-40 and the 16-35 give different results, but by and large they're generally found to be in the same ballpark. Mine behaves in accordance with the Luminous Landscape test - it's sharper at the wide end than the long end (this is on a 20D; I only took a handful of shots with this lens on a film body before going digital so I can't fairly assess its full-frame abilities). Given that most people who've used both tend to find them more or less comparable, I believe I'd be happy using the 16-35 if elves were to replace my 17-40 with it at no additional cost to me.</p>

 

<p>I hate the converging-verticals look. Well, if it's pronounced; if it's subtle, it can convey a sense of height. But I often find myself fixing it in software to produce images like <a href="http://www.estockpics.com/details.php?gid=&sgid=&pid=778" target="_blank">this one</a> out of originals that looked more like wedges. A shift lens could make the images better by eliminating the need to interpolate a bunch of new pixels in software. I don't think I'd use tilt as much but there have been times when it would have been useful. That said, of the three lenses you mention, I suspect I'd use the TS-E the least; while I enjoy the speed and optical quality of primes, the flexibility of a zoom is important to me, particularly at the wide end where only a couple of mm can make a big difference.</p>

[trothwell]

My widest lens is Canon's 15mm fisheye, and I absolutely love it, except I find that I often would rather not have the fishy part. :-) I myself would go for the 14mm lens (and, in fact, likely will sometime).

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Trevis, if you shoot digital, you can de-fish the images.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

I can undertand people lazily not using the search function for common questions, but this

thread is four posts below yours, for the same inquiry:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H3eZ&tag=

[aaron_johnston]

The "same" inquiry? That's a convenient reduction for the sake of argument. That thread is about someone interested in the 16-35 vs. 17-40 debate. I don't even express interest in the 17-40 and my query is considerably broader and requests information on two entirely different lenses -- the 14mm and 24mm Tilt Shift. Now, if you're done with lazy reductionism, mind offering something substantive to the thread?

[eos 10 fan]

Between the 14L, 24/TS-E & 16-35L I would pick the 16-35L, especially if I already had a 24/1.4L in my bag... versatility! (and i'm a zoom junkie). You probably will want to read MR's 24 comparo:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml

 

--

[michaelschrag]

Aaron,

 

You may have already done this, but did you check the reviews at Fred Miranda's site? There you will find the opinions of many people who ACTUALLY own the lens in question (all of the lenses that you list are reviewed). That's where I usually check first.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

[neild]

If you can afford one, the T/S lens would be fun - a pity it would be no different in focal length than the lens you already have.

 

I have the 16-35: as far as convenience goes, it's great! But, as you yourself note, there are inconsistencies. I would use it for convenience' sake, but would shift to primes if I knew I wanted high image quality (I have the Olympus 21/2 and 18/3.5 and they are very good.) I do find wide angles hard to focus manually with the 5D and so the 16-35 does have the advantage for this factor.

[savas_kyprianides]

Aaron, you are lazy. There are literally scores of threads on this very subject.

[aaron_johnston]

Savas: Sorry I'm not the kind of guy who commandeers someone else's question for the sake of diverting it toward my needs. Also, I did search but wasn't actually looking for every/any thread vaguely to do with a wide angle lens. I find it funny that you can't seem to find the redundancy yourself (i.e. the myriad duplicate threads asking for the precise information that I am asking) considering your somewhat obsessive-compulsive relationship with...a website.

 

To everyone else, thanks a lot for helping to narrow this tough decision. We're going to rent the 14mm and the 24mm TS-E and see which lens seems to work for our needs.

[dean doe]

It's amazing that no one read what you have actually posted and just rambled on their opinions instead of answering your questions. I myself have thought about getting one of the three lenses you are considering now, but have changed my mind since I've read numerous discussions on the poor performance of Canon wide angle lenses. Good luck and let us know what you have bought ultimately.

[wolver]

<i>Savas Kyprianides , jun 25, 2006; 06:48 a.m.

Aaron, you are lazy. There are literally scores of threads on this very subject.</i><br><br>

 

Wow, been a member here for 6 months and have become an authority about all threads on the forum. <b>That's impressive!</b>

[tedg]

Howdy!

 

I recently acquired the EF17-40mm f4 L and am quite pleased with it. The 16-35 is also a nice lens and the extra stop is handy; however, for shooting off a tripod f4 is plenty. The lens itself is L-quality without the weight and on a 1.6 crop sensor it has an excellent walk-around shooting range...and it is discreet as well NOT being blinding white colored. I did try the 16-35 and found it to be a great lens too....but the extra cost for just a single stop did not make it worth to me!

[d_g]

i've took an other way...

i've bought a canon just to be able to use their TS/E lens !

i don't need the tilt capabilities of the 24, but the shift...

 

Put the camera on a tripod, level the camera, shift or rise the lens to obtain the good

framing... everithing is level, and no converging images anymore... no software can do it

properly, especially when you have stuff in between you and the building !

 

i have the 24 TSE, the 45 TSE and my next purchase will be the 90 TSE !

But most of time i shoot with large format camera...

 

Later, i will buy a 17/40... unfortunately, sometimes 24 isn't wide enought !

i've test the 20 : horrible with my 5D, maybe a bad sample !

[christian deichert]

I have the 24/3.5L TS-E and the 16-35/2.8L. No complaints about either of them. Having previously owned the Minolta 35/2.8 Shift CA Rokkor-X, the shift has been pretty easy. The interesting concept is that the Canon has one shift knob, and the lens rotates on its axis to vary the horizontal or vertical shift, while the Shift CA had horizontal and vertical knobs and traversed the limits of the image circle.

 

The TS-E is quite definitely a specialty lens, however, and while I find myself constantly using the 16-35/2.8L, the TS-E only comes out of the bag for specialized applications. If I only had space in my bag and budget for one, I would get the 16-35/2.8L. While there are potentially lemons out there for any model of lens, I have had great experiences with my copy of this lens.<div></div>

[aaron_johnston]

We're thinking about a 16-35 and possibly having it calibrated if we feel our copy is considerably soft compared to the copy we rent.

 

Thanks for the 24mm TS-E info. The curiosity is certainly still there but we'll probably wait until our skills catch up.

 

In the meantime, here's why we love our 24mm f1.4L:<div></div>