Tilt Shift

[david_huff1]

<p>I think I am ready to take the next step into tilt shift. Looking for views on whether to get the TS-E 17mm f/4L or TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. I am an advanced amateur that enjoys travel/architectural photography. Thanks in advance.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Here is an excellent start from a couple of weeks ago,</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vz3c">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vz3c</a></p>

<p>If you are going to spend the money I still say go all the way to the 17. You will have to rise to the challenge of composing effectively with it.</p>

[samuel_hon]

<p>Hi<br>

I would recommend renting both of the lenses before splashing out for the lenses. This can help you judge the differences between the focal lengths and how the TS works. <br>

Another simpler way is to use an existing lens at 17/24 and see if its suitable for what you want<br>

Sam</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you are shooting on a 35mm-sensor, I would say either would do well, in fact, while you're at it, get both. They will serve somewhat different purposes on a "full-frame" body. :)</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, you are shooting on an APS-C body, the TS-E 17mm is surely intended by Canon to give APS-C shooters a meaningful wide angle (that is to say the equivalent of a 27±mm) tilt/shift lens. The 24mm is really not wide enough on such a body, where a minimum of 35mm is needed for architectural photography.</p>

<p>Things like product photography, of course, are another story.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>On a 1.6x crop body, the 24mm TS-E is the perfect lens for grabbing close detail of hand size objects in micro environments at intimately close, arm's length distance, while partially defeating depth of field to capture the big picture of suitable surroundings. Without a strong foreground object in the composition, its use is quite a bit more subtle. Tilt keeps a bit more sharpness in broad flat planes/plains, while shift helps control "tipping" of verticals.</p>

<p>I believe, but without benefit of personal experience, the 17mm is too wide, particularly on full frame, for human scale micro-environments, turning them instead into miniature landscapes. Which might be fun to try, but possibly a bit too "in yo' face", transforming molehills into mountains. The shots I've seen from 17mm TS-E shows a very human scale rendering of broad vistas, the type of sweeping shot that would otherwise want for stitched pano's to capture. (I saw a wonderful shot posted here not long ago of a tiled roof roof-scape that exemplifies the type of shot I have in mind.)</p>

<p>I've used the 24mm TS-E for everything from close-up, not quite macro, detail shots, environmental portraits, and landscapes, of course. I drove it around mounted in an open convertible a few times, capturing video of both sharp-to-the-horizon variety, as well as miniaturized-toyland type cityscapes. The car mounted video, 24mm on APS-C, was a bit narrow and confining for the convertible, and one of the few times I felt a 17mm would have been more appropriate.</p>

 

[david_huff1]

<p>Thank you for your views. In response to the body question, I shoot off both a 5D Mark II and a 1D Mark IV if that helps frame your view. My original thinking was towards the 24mm but I still welcome any further views on either. </p>

[david_huff1]

<p>Thanks John, I hadn't seen that thread until now. That was helpful.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I own the 24 mm lens and like it very, very much. In addition to having excellent optics, it's very solidly built and a joy to use. I'm certain that the 17 mm enjoys the same excellent construction.</p>

<p>It's impossible to make a recommendation without knowing what you want to do with the lens. For full-frame cameras, 24 mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. Also, I don't like the distortion inherent in extra-wide lenses. The 24 mm made more sense for me.</p>

<p>Consider that since you have the 1D mk IV, the crop sensor would give you two lenses in one. The 17 mm would act like a 22 mm on the 1D4, and the 24 would act like a 31 mm lens. Lots of interesting possibilities. Only you know which focal lengths will work best for you.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>I have pondered...and continue to ponder...this same decision. The fact that I can correct for lens distortion and converging verticals in post-processing (using Dxooptics) already keeps holding me back. To be sure, you can get better results with these high-end shift lenses--not to mention tilt--but compared to free (I already have the software) it is a lot to spend. You might want to trial this amazing software before taking the plunge.</p>

 

[brendan_trewartha]

<p>David, I bought the 24mm TS-E II last year and have found this to be brilliant.<br>

It is a extremely sharp 24mm lens to start with, of course you would not buy it just for this.<br>

The lens has a 14mm angle of view which makes it plenty wide enough for any landscape or architectural work I have considered, the only complication is you will need to stitch 2 shifted photos however this is seamless and easy as long as you rig your base plate so you can shift move the camera easily at the same time you shift the lens.<br>

I generally do not use grad filters and the like much these days, preferring to take multiple exposures and blend in Photoshop, however one other benefit of this lens over the 17mm version is you can easily attach a polariser, I use a LEE filter system with wide angle attachment and a slot in polariser - perfect even when the lens is shifted a full 12mm.<br>

The tilt functionality is something you could write a book about, great feature, very useful and opens up a whole new world of creative photography.<br>

All the best with your decision,<br>

Brendan.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Although you can correct perspective distortion in software to some degree, I've had many instances where I couldn't correct it completely. Further, you're throwing away some resolution when you use software distortion correction.</p>

<p>The tilt/swing capability is not something that you can model in software, but focus-stacking is another means to a very similar end.<br>

<br />These are VERY EXPENSIVE lenses. You could buy a modest view camera setup for the price of ONE of these lenses. That said, a TS-E lens would be a tremendously portable and flexible addition to your Canon bag when you can't deal with the bulk and other demands of a LF system. They don't do everything that a view camera can do - you can't combine rise/fall with shifts or combine simultaneous tilts and swings, and you can't make film-plane adjustments (only lens plane) - but these are very capable products, and the convenience is difficult to beat.</p>

<p>Bottom line: If you really need movements for your type of shooting and if you demand top-notch optic performance, these new TS-E lenses deliver the goods.</p>

[timothy_smith1]

<p>I have the 24mm T/S II, and am extremely happy with it. The contrast and resolution is superb, and there is virtually no chromatic aberration (on a 5Dii). I think for your purposes the 24mm would be sufficient (if you have a full-frame sensor camera). I debated between that and the 17mm, but decided for my purposes (most architectural/building photography--old buildings in Europe mainly) and for a Canon 5Dii, the 24mm made more sense. The 17mm seems very special-purpose to me, and too wide for my images. Of course, YMMV. (I use shift only, have only played around with the tilt.)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I'm seriously considering this lens for my bag, mainly for scenic and to a lesser degree for archetectural, all as a hobbiest. The other lens that I'm considering is the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. Right now I'm using the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS and correcting it in DxO's Optics Pro 6.x.x software.</p>

<p>I'm leaning toward this lens because you get an excellent, sharp, high contrast, wide angle lens AND T&S for around the same price of the excellent Zeiss. Based on test shots that I've seen and actually searching images on Flickr, they're both superb lenses.</p>

[cm_mcmullen]

Hi David. A nice decision to be forced to make! I have the original TS 24 and used it for most of my shooting in film (so much so its the only lens I have with "brassing," if you can use that term with a non-brass item). For your 5D you won't be disappointed. And the fact that it takes filters is a BIG plus in my book; polarizers are the norm for me where I live.

 

That said, given that you can already get to 24mm (albeit fixed) and are considering a 21mm, you might just take the plunge for the 17mm. I've not tried it yet but the little I've heard has all been positive. Of course it gives you the flexibility of cropping down to narrower (21 or 24mm) perspectives, but the lack of a drop in filter is maddening for me (they put one on the 14mm, why not the 17mm -- especially for APS shooters?!)

 

So the final recommendation is to test both before deciding. If you're lucky you have a local shop who can rent you each before purchase. They might loan each to you for a few hours, or credit the price of a rental towards your purchase. Good luck...and welcome to the club!

[dcstep]

<p>Thanks for the ideas CM.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards the 24mm compared to the 17mm since I perceived better IQ when used as a straight wide angle, in the tests that I saw. The 24mm Canon and the 21mm Zeiss seemed very close in IQ as best I could tell. 21mm is the only focal length that Zeiss has in this territory.</p>

<p>Still, looking at the EXIF data for my scenics taken with the 24-105mm, almost all my scenics are at 24mm. To me that means that if I'd had 21mm or 17mm available I'd probably have gone there. Also, I DO own a 7D also, where I'd want to have the 17mm if I needed to carry only one body and the 7D got the nod because I'd be shooting mainly wildlife.</p>

<p>Crap, I thought I'd made that decision.</p>

<p>Any full frame users here feel that they really "need" the 17mm over the 24mm and, if so, why?</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>David-- I recommend looking at sample photos in Flickr to see what people do with the 17mm and 24mm TSE lenses. There's a lot of dreck, but there are some very interesting pictures as well. Two big challenges in using the ultra-wide: extreme rectilinear distortion towards the edges (circles not preserved) and great expanses of nothing (e.g., empty sky). Standout shots with the 17mm are usually (not always, but usually) of interiors (which avoid the empty sky problem) or of architecture that has a strong enough graphic interest that the rectilinear distortion doesn't distract. I'm sure that there's no limit to creative options with this lens, but like any ultra-wide it gives you lots of opportunity to make incredibly boring or distorted and ugly pictures...it must be used with care. All of these points apply to the 24, just much less so. Of course, you can always crop from the 17mm, but you lose some resolution, which may not matter in the slightest.</p>

<p>Again, the shift features can be duplicated in software in post-processing for free. You will be amazed at how natural and "correct" your pictures at 24mm on your 24-105 look after distortion and converging/diverging verticals are removed using DXO. If you have an ultra-wide zoom (for either full-frame or crop) you can do the same. You can't duplicate tilt, although there are other tricks using multiple exposures to approach this.</p>

<p>My advice is to get some experience using the software approach and then you can always get the specialized lens for that extra nth degree of corner sharpness when you see that its a problem.</p>

<p>Let me illustrate with an example (using a 5D2 with the 24-105mm zoom at 50mm):</p>

<p>Before:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10887553-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="454" /></p>

<p>After:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10887554-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="454" /></p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Ken, thank you so much for your thoughtful advice.<br>

I'm a "Pro" member at Flickr and do consider it a valuable resource and have found how to sort around and past the tons of "dreck", as you say, there. There are a some very talented photographers posting there and the challenge is only in finding them amonst the millions of posts per day. Hopefully some TSE users are Tagging their images with the lens, as I do on all of mine.</p>

<p>You advice on getting familiar with digital correction is well taken. I've been on that route for over a year, using both automatic and manual correction of my 24-105 in DxO's Optics Pro. The results make a marginal lens (mine in particular was not great) into a sharp, impressive lens. It's just that looking at the images from the Zeiss and these TSEs, I see even better sharpness, contrast and saturation.</p>

<p>I suppose that I should really try to borrow or rent the lenses in question and shoot the same scenes with my 24-105, the 17mm and 24mm TSEs and the Zeiss, after I eliminate one candidate by the Flickr comparo method.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I must say, I'm back from taking Ken's advice to check out Flickr examples of these lenses. I looked at a bunch of TS-E 17mm and 24mm and the Ziess 21mm Distigon images. Ken's prediction that the stunning images I'd see with the 17mm would be indoor shots didin't hold true. I felt most compelled by the outdoor images that I saw with the 17mm, representing things that I can't do with my 24-105mm, as corrected in post. Many of the 17mm images just jumped out at me and then when I looked at them in large sizes, they held up very well, with great detail, minimal distortion, great contrast and very "special" perspective. I focused on the images shot with full frame bodies, like the 5D MkII.</p>

<p>The slight loss of IQ over the 24mm is more than made up by the 17mm's unique perspective, at least to my eye. Keep in mind that I already have a good 24-105mm, so I've got the 24mm field of view covered, just lacking TS and a little IQ. Each of these lenses has a Flickr Group dedicated to the lens, so it's very easy to find samples for review. You can also Search the Tags and find lots of Zeiss images.</p>