Why Canon again..? TS-E 17mm f/4

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Why CANON again . . . !?!? Dammit.! . . . . TS-E 17mm f/4 . . . . ! The lens all, or many landscape photographer desire to have it. Why Nikon lugging behind Canon, sometime many-many years for such a lenses. Canon has a TS 24mm very long time and Nikon just com out recently, with such a lens. TS 24mm. Or! Should I buy a Canon FF with this lens to be happy? I can't afford the combination with a camera body, but I could afford to buy a lens like this, if Nikon ever going to produce lens like this.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Take a look at the work of Galen Rowell and Jim Brandenburg then decide if your work is better than theirs or not. Because if it is, then yeah, maybe you need that new 17mm. But if your work is not as good, then that 17mm is not likely to do you any good since you have other things to work on. I shoot landscapes for a living, I rarely go wider than 20mm unless it is panoramic. The best selling images are between 24mm-100mm.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Why do you need a 17 mm TS lens for landscapes? My thinking is that the wider the lens, the close the subject should be in order to work out the projection distortion to an advantage. Landscapes aren't usually one foot away and the "rock on foreground, sunset in background" -composition quickly becomes a cliche.<br>

There are interesting things that could be done with a 17 mm TS, though, but I'm more irritated that Nikon doesn't have an easy way to change shift and tilt directions relative to one another which Canon now does have (albeit only in these wides...I'd need it for the tele...)</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>For Daniel. You go to my web page, and you going to see a lots of super wide landscape on it. Regardless, I can't brag, I selling images, also I can't brag I am so good, then Galen Rowell. Hi is good and also, don't forget that. He was able, fortunate, to goo to this places. And I believe one more, he get a connection, etc. lots of very good photographer out there, whom never have a chance to get published as galen Rowell had, and they are as good as he was. Business and art, never reflecting a real value of somebody's work. Furthermore, selling images not always the sigh of a greet artistic work. Vincent Van Gogh never sold a canvas in his life. The sad thing is, many time, the name sells not the actually art. Just because, you don't know somebody, you not supposed to put down a person. Look first the persons work, then give a comments.</p>

<p>For Oskar; If I wine for a TS-17mm I have a good reason.</p>

<p>Thank you for your comments, for all of you.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>And just a short while back the announcement of the 17mm TS-E brought forth complaints from some on the EOS forum about how stupid Canon was to produce such a lens that no one would want.<br>

I still feel that its primary use is for TS-E on the 15x22mm sensor cameras, but no doubt some use for it will be found on the so-called FF cameras....</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>Why not just shoot a view camera? They are very simple and far less complex than DSLR. They also handle perspective far more efficiently.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Well, you may have to consider stitching, a Canon FF body or a view camera. Each have their advantages and disadvantages.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Oskar, I manage to get a sharp images with the 14/2.8, from my toe, to infinity, but the TS-E 17 would make my work easier. Not needing to close down to f16 f22. Btw, I wanted to see your images, and find none. "?" Or, you are a critic only, not a photographer ?</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Tilt can indeed help, I did state the options. Not the ideal, but there are seldom perfect choices...<br>

I made some 10000 exposures last year, I haven't put anything on this site. I would probably put up a gallery site when I find the time to do that. time is such a scarce commodity these days...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all, as far as I know nobody had ever produced any 17mm tilt/shift lens until Canon announced this lens recently. However, landscape photography has been around for decades, and people have created a lot of great landscape images without such super wide lenses, let along with T/S.</p>

<p>In particular, the 17mm T/S has a bulging front element similar to a lot of fisheye lenses as well as Nikon's 14-24mm/f2.8 zoom so that it is impossible to use any front filters. The OP should be very familiar with that issue: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SB1i">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SB1i</a> The inability to use filters is a major no no for a lot of landscape photographers.</p>

<p>Therefore, exactly why this 17mm T/S is all of a sudden a "must have" lens for landscape photography is beyond me. To me, a 17mm T/S is mainly an architecture lens especially when you are indoors with tight corners. I personally have Nikon's 24mm/f3.5 PC-E and I think 24mm is great for both landscape and architcture.</p>

<p>However, if for whatever reason this 17mm T/S is so important for you, the obvious answer is to get a Canon FF body to go along with it. Since it is you who want something so exotic that has never even been produced before, you'll just have to figure out a way to pay for it as well as a body to go along with it. Otherwise, I simply don't see what purpose this thread serves.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Shun, you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but this new lens makes a <strong>useful</strong> focal length TS-E lens available for those who shoot 15x22mm sensor cameras. That's not exotic at all, but merely fulfilling a long-felt need on the part of those who might prefer to shoot the APS-C sensor cameras, but <em>had</em> to buy the 24x36mm sensor bodies to get the shift feature in a useful focal length, before this new lens. I've been shooting architecture with a 35mm PC-Nikkor since 1971 when I bought mine, so I am not just speaking in theoretical terms.</p>

<p>Even the 24mm was just a little too long for a really effective shift lens for architecture on the smaller sensor.</p>

<p>Of course, in validation of a long established practice of mine, I bought a "full-frame" 5D to use with my <em>existing</em> PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 just a week before the new lens was announced. Given the price of the new lens, I probably came out ahead, since I also got a nice L lens and flash out of it. Had I but known, I would have been perfectly happy with a new 50D and the new 17mm TS-E lens, if somewhat poorer.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>I'm an architectural photographer and it will probably be a long time before I can afford the 17mm TS-E, but I am definitely salivating over it. For now, I have to shoot super-wide stuff with my 17-35L and correct the perspective with PTLens software.</p><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>For JDM and Dave. Thank you for your comments, finally somebody understood my opinion on wide angle TS lenses. It is an important part of architectural photography and a very useful lens for landscape too. Those, whom they shoot landscape with up to 28 max 24mm lens, my never understood a usefulness of a super wide angle lens, never mind to know, how to use them, and they have no idea what to do, with a 17 TS lens. Most of the serious photographer has a 17-35/2.8 lens. Why? To use it only at the 35mm end? Of course you cam have greet images with 28 or 24mm lens, , but your work is easier if you can tilt and shift a lens, like a large format cameras, but you don't have to struggle with the size and clumsiness of it. I would be very happy if Nikon producing such a lens, unfortunately they are not. And I'm very jealous now for the Canon group. And don't tell me folks, Henry Cartier Besson did his famous images with one lens only. Yes! But it is not the point here.</p>

<p>"You can carve a nice sculpture, with a bronze chisel, but much easier if you have a hard sharp steel chisel."</p>

<p>"Take a look at the work of Galen Rowell and Jim Brandenburg then decide if your work is better than theirs or not.Because if it is, then yeah, maybe you need that new 17mm."<br /> Statements like this not an intelligent comment.</p>

<p> </p>

[jussi_vakkala1]

<blockquote>

<p>That's not exotic at all, but merely fulfilling a long-felt need on the part of those who might prefer to shoot the APS-C sensor cameras, but <em>had</em> to buy the 24x36mm sensor bodies to get the shift feature in a useful focal length, before this new lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With price of TS-E 17/4 only you could buy 5D and TS-E 24/3.5. I think image qualitywise that would beat 1.6x combination easily. I cannot see much sense to shoot with 1.6x crop camera, with almost same physical dimensions as 5DMKII, if you have that much money to toss around for a one speciality lens.<br>

Further, determining tilt and shift from viewfinder is way much easier if you can do it from bigger viewfinder of full frame cameras. Especially if your lens maximum aperture is f4. For me 1.6x and TS-E 17/4 would be like putting cheap Chinese brand x tyres on new Ferrari to save some cash.<br>

Seriously, if you are after quality wide angle TS-E, 1.6x crop is not the way to go ;)</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I strongly agree with Jussi Vakkala! The Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 to use on a 1.6X body, is not logical. Like using the Nikon 14-24/2.8 on a DX body is not logical too. And regardless what some people, so called . . . . "expert/pros" . . . saying, a 17 or 18mm TS lens is a very useful lens, for many application, as Interior, architecture and for landscape too, just to mention a couple.</p>