Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm

[danbliss]

<p>So Canon just announced a new 24mm and maybe more interestingly a 17mm tilt and shift lens. I am not embarrassed to say it, but I think I lusting after the 17mm. Is that wrong? :-) Does anyone know anymore than the news release? Has anyone seen it in person? I am afraid to ask how much it will cost. -Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I'm waiting for reaction to the utility of a 17mm TS lens, and also to hearing more about how the lens performs.</p>

<p>It seems to me that a 17mm TS would have limited utility on FF bodies since DOF is already tremendously large at typical smaller apertures used for much of the shooting where such a lens might be used. it could be more useful on a cropped sensor body, I suppose, but I think that market for such an expensive TS option for cropped sensor users would be pretty limited - if you are doing that sort of work and can afford that sort of lens you would most likely be shooting FF.</p>

<p>The 24mm sounds more interesting for FF work.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[eric_boutilier_brown1]

<p>The moment I saw the 17mm T/S announced, I re-evaluated my plan to got the Zeiss EF 21mm...the 17mm is wider, whichi s always my preference, but with shift, it could easily avoid the convergence that is such an issue with super-wides - yes, you can correct it in PS, but that looses resolution, and assuming the 17mm is as sharp as it COULD be, I'd take it in a heat-beat over the 21mm Zeiss. The tilt is less usefull, as was already stated, but on small format bodies, that is true of most wides...but shift woul dbe awesome to be able to use on a lens as wide as a 17mm!</p>

[tim gray]

<p>A lot of people use TS lenses for correcting perspective distortion and not for the DOF stuff. So a 17mm TS lens could really come in handy for that.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>I saw a price of >$2,000 kicked around over on Fred Miranda this AM. On a full frame, it is reported to provide >6deg of tilt or shift.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It's $2499. Does that diminish your lust? The 24 MkII is $2199, just over $1000 more than the current 24 MkI<p>

IThe 17mm has +/- 6.5° Tilt and +/-12mm Shift, while the 24mm MkII has +/- 8.5° Tilt and ±12mm Shift <p>(<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_tse_17_24.html">link</a>)</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that a 17mm TS would have limited utility on FF bodies since DOF is already tremendously large at typical smaller apertures used for much of the shooting where such a lens might be used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have posted in the other thread on the same subject why a 17 mm T/S is a godsend for architectural shooters. Besides, focal length has nothing to do with DOF and for most shooting one wants to use the optimal f/stop, not the smallest possible, and distortion-limited resolution creeps in early (around f/7.1 or so) on a 21 mpixel FF sensor...</p>

[danbliss]

 

<p >Bob at $2499, it doesn't diminish my lust, but it does decrease the likelihood that I will purchasing one any time soon. Lust, on the other hand, is quite cheap. :-)</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>It's the shift that is significant on the 17mm, for correction of converging perspectives. The tilt is more useful close up for things like product photography.<br>

I still think the most obvious utility is for the APS sensor cameras where no real wide-angle shift lens has hitherto been available (see previous discussion <a href="00SUVv">here</a> ). I'd like to see how the perspective of this actually looks on a 24x36mm sensor camera before going that wide. I've used a 35mm perspective control lens since 1971 on film cameras, and would have got the 28mm if there had not been such a price penalty. I never felt the lack of a 17mm PC lens, however, in years of architectural photography here and in other parts of the world.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I have posted in the other thread on the same subject why a 17 mm T/S is a godsend for architectural shooters. Besides, focal length has nothing to do with DOF and for most shooting one wants to use the optimal f/stop, not the smallest possible, and distortion-limited resolution creeps in early (around f/7.1 or so) on a 21 mpixel FF sensor...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, yes and no.<br>

Saying that focal length has nothing to do with DOF is incorrect in the context of making real prints from images captured in the different formats. There is no doubt about that.</p>

<p>"Distortion-limited resolution," by which I presume you mean <em>diffraction blur</em> , does not "creep in" at a different aperture depending upon the photosite density in a given format. You get precisely the same "amount" of diffraction blur with a 12MP FF body that you get with a 21MP FF body when you shoot with the same lens and at the same aperture.</p>

<p>It is true that in some limited circumstances (making a tremendously large print, shooting from tripod with MLU/remote, using the very best lenses with the highest level of optical resolution, perfect focus) that you might be able to measue <em>slightly</em> higher resolution at a slightly larger aperture with a body with "more MP."</p>

<p>However, I have to say that if you are working so close to the limits of FF sensor/lens resolution that it would make a lot more sense to move to MF digital or even scanned MF or LF film.</p>

<p>Of course, none of this contradicts my basic observation that "that a 17mm TS would have limited utility on FF bodies." Use of the word "limited" rather than the word "no" was intentional.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>I too am drooling, the 17mm looks great, lack of ability to use a filter is a bummer so maybe the 24, i have heard of all the older Canon TSE lens's the 24 was a little soft so I see why that was replaced, looks like a smart move for Canon. Alas like Mr Bliss said, the cost may deter my purchase for a while.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>I've always wanted Canon's T-S lenses (yeah all three), and the 17mm lens looks intriging, but being a LF photographer, I can get a 58-62mm (LF equipvalent) Schneider or Rodenstock lens for half the price and have more controls with the camera. But I got to admit the lens sure looks inviting.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p> You get precisely the same "amount" of diffraction blur with a 12MP FF body that you get with a 21MP FF body when you shoot with the same lens and at the same aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pure lens diffraction. For an explanation of diffraction-limited resolution see <a href=" You get precisely the same ">here</a> for instance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I have to say that if you are working so close to the limits of FF sensor/lens resolution that it would make a lot more sense to move to MF digital or even scanned MF or LF film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Film is not an answer to many needs (there are tremendous issues of film flatness, etc. in technical photography) and MF has its warts (lots of my shooting is done with PhaseOne 45+) so a high-res DSLR is often the optimal solution.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, none of this contradicts my basic observation that "that a 17mm TS would have limited utility on FF bodies."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon has been asking various photogs about such specialist lenses for a long time so I guess there has to be a lot of folks like myself :-) Well, we'll see whether the 17 T/S is accepted but, provided the performance is good, I - and lots of T/S shooting photogs - will line up early for that lens.</p>

[adrian_lowe]

<p>Well its just so annoying, I've just taken delivery of the MkI 24 TSE..especially when I was considering the issue of the Tilt and shift being locked on opposing axes...typical innit?</p>

<p>Ahh well just be in time for the 17mm TSE....OR I could buy a 1Ds mkIII and then be surprised by a replacement of a 30Meg sensor and 16 or 32 bit processors, and do everyone a favour by superstition.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, Adrian, and I just last week bought a 5D so I could put my 35mm PC-Nikkor back into service.<br>

It was cheaper than getting the 17mm however, even <em>with</em> a 24-105mm and a 430EX.</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>I used a Canon FD 17mm f4 for 15 years. The thought of having it with tilt and shift to correct convergence in architecture and even in landscapes would be astounding. I have since switched to a Nikon 14/2.8. For the price of the new TS 17mm I'd rather have a used Nikon 8/2.8 or even a 58 XL for my 4x5.</p>

<p>I do look forward to seeing sample photos showing the effects of various tilts and shifts. If this lens makes its way into my arsenal it won't be for many many years. </p>

[evphotography]

<p>I think this is great news, should make a lot of Landscape photographers happy. Hopefully they will be higher quality then their previous WA lenses. Now if they would just update and make a really high quality 20mm & 28mm lens, they would stop getting criticized so badly for not having some high quality wide angle lenses. If they are as good as price tag, then it will make the new breed of 20+ MP camera owners very happy. </p>

[juhani_risku]

<p>I wonder what are the biggest differences between TS-E 24mm old and MkII? Are they listed somwhere? - JRi</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>For the mark one 24mm users (I am one) you can have a simple conversion done to rotate the orientation of the movements relative to each other. So that you can tilt then shift to recompose. Obviously the new design would be nicer, but if you haven't the will or money...<br>

Heres a link here:<br>

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_42/essay.html<br>

If you have shaky hands or poor eyesight then maybe ask a cam engineer to do it.<br>

Good to see that Canon are still r & d-ing established & specialist minority market lenses.<br>

I use the 24mm on a full frame film and APS-C digital. The shift works great, the tilt is impossible to perceive via the small viewfinder of my 400D (XTi) Maybe I should be thinking about going full-frame digital, or getting a body with live view.<br>

The handbook for the lens isn't particularly helpful either.<br>

Has anybody used a 24mm TS-E on a 5Dmk2 at all? Would be interesting to see the results, I gather it was a poor performer on the old 5D (though its great on my 3 and I pixel peep my 5400dpi scans)<br>

I suspect that the 17mm will be designed to appeal to 50D users and the like.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Just thought I'd return and correct an ommission in my earlier posts. While my main (but not only) perspective is that of a landscape photographer - and that is why I'm not personally all that excited about a 17mm TS - I do recognize that for those doing a lot of architectural and similar photography on FF DSLRs the perspective correction ability of this will likely be quite useful, especially when shooting in constrained spaces and/or close to the subject. A small group but still one that will probably find this lens very useful.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>I have and use the original 24mm and 45mm TS-E lenses.</p>

<p>I definitely want the 17mm, but will prob wait a little while until the price drops a bit. It will.</p>

<p>In 1991 the original 24mm sold for approx. $2000 of today's dollars, if you adjust for inflation. So, the $2100-2200 price tag isn't unreasonable, for starters, especially if they've done some things to solve chromatic aberration issues with the original lens, and considering that both the new lenses offer the user ability to realign tilt and shift orientation with each other, on the fly, which you couldn't do with all three of the original TS-Es. Now, I don't use the 24mm TS-E enough on my crop sensor cameras to rush out and upgrade to the new one. I'd be more inclined to do so if I had a full frame DSLR.</p>

<p>TS-E lenses have a lot of uses. I use the 45mm a lot for small product shots (tabletop/studio work... again, this is with crop sensor cameras... If I were shooting full frame, I'd have the 90mm for this purpose, instead.)</p>

<p>They are also great for multi image panoramas. And just try shooting a mirror without getting yourself in the images, too, without a TS-E lens. Odd uses of the plane of DOF can be used to interesting, if sometimes overdone effect, too.</p>

<p>Canon's prime lens lineup has had a major gap in it between the 14mm and 20mm for a long, long time now. It's about time they filled it. Sorry, but I think the 17mm will mostly appeal to full frame DSLR users, but it will also serve crop users well too. There hasn't been any truly wide TS-E for crop sensor, up to now.</p>

[adrian_lowe]

<p>Being serious for a moment, and regarding the 17mm Tse, I can't wait to get hold of one...may take some effort re. funding but for me its an absolute must. I've been using a Canon 17-40mm for Interior and Architectural commissions recently and I've found that more often than not, I'm using the 17mm setting, and I have to say that the quality is really (and surprisingly)very good. I used to have a 14mm FD lens that I had invariably mounted permanently to an F1. I think I must dream in wide angle view.</p>

<p>As far as the 24mm Tse goes , I can see that the rotating axes for shift AND tilt would be a major step forward....I have the MkI and have had to get mine altered....seemed a bit daft having shift and tilt in opposing aspects.... Might be interesting too, to see if Canon wise up and release a dedicated focusing screen to go with these lenses ?</p>

[aaron d]

<p>Paul, I just posted some new photos using the 24 TSE on a 5Dii here: www.aarondougherty.com Click the first asterisk (the really close-up shots are with a 70-200 f4).<br>

These are only 72 dpi so they're fairly worthless for making critical evaluations... But I do think the 24 TSE "MkI" is a wonderful lens, when it's used on a tripod at f11. I think those who complain about the it are trying to make it do what it wasn't designed for - other lenses are better for taking photos of squirrels in the park... I <i>am</i> seeing more CA on the "ii" body than on the "i", but I can't say what's to blame yet - I need to fool around with it some more. Seems like I can't get it all corrected in adobe raw converter - it goes away in one part of the image, in one "direction" but appears somewhere else or even in the same little area. I'll get the diagonal lines corrected, but horizontals go whack. It's visible only at extreme zooms and probably doesn't really matter much in the real world...</p>