Advice on TS-E lenses

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>Hi.<br>

I see a large number of TS-E lenses for sale on eBay. Is that normal? Why are so many people selling them? Could my impression be wrong, and the number for sale be comparable to other lenses? I am especially puzzled that a lot of them say they're the 'II' version, by which I presume the one Canon released in 2009.<br>

I was under the impression that these were very niche lenses that most people rented rather than buying, is that incorrect?</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Renting... - Lensrentals.com don't cater the ROW for example and I guess a lot of folks buy gear because "it should be nice to have" instead of " for that job next Thursday". - Anyhow: reasons to ditch TS-E lenses are obvious: a bag might be heavy enough without them and they don't replace rigid AF lenses due to their sluggish handling. Somebody tried them and figured out cropping & PP cut the cake too. An important client bought one for their management under assistant trainee who shoots for a song. Or maybe some magazine or such pushed them a while ago and folks are moving on to MILCs & i-phones? - I recall my boss copied some newspaper article about them a while ago but didn't get one.<br>

I never handled one of them but know a buddy with a PC Nikkor barely uses it and something view camera based is maybe more fun to use in a studio?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>It's normal. <br /> ... Because many more people <em>think</em> they need/want TS-E lenses than actually do...<br /> ...and fewer still have the discipline, knowledge & skill to use the lenses to the lenses capabilities...<br /> ... the lenses are professional tools, as such, they sacrifice all the unnecessary frippery - like speed, zoom, and AF so that they are very very capable of one primary goal. Some would call it a 'one-trick-pony', but of course we know better, since there are an infinite variety of subjects and compositions, and perspectives.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Absolutely agree with the above. These are "aspirational" lenses that people think will transform their photography (rather like ultra fast lenses). They are also nice and expensive which appeals to those who think spending money will make them a better photographer. When they find out the inconvenience of carrying a lens twice the size of a non-TS version, that is non-autofocus, and is only useful some of the time, they sell it. They have their uses, but I have never felt the urge to get a wide-angle one, although I have rented the 24mm in the past. Fisheyes fall into the same category for most people, although not for me. Personally, I think you should know whether you need one before you buy a TS lens: if you don't know then you probably don't need it. I would quite like a 45 or 90 mm TS lens to play with, but I am aware this is a pure luxury for me.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>My move to Nikon in the early 70s was entirely motivated by their 35mm PC-Nikkor. I still use that lens all the time, but now more often than not with an adapter on a EOS camera. I more recently got the TS-E 17mm lens, which is astounding. I use both of these very frequently when I do architectural photography and reasonably often otherwise. Even without the tilts and shifts, the 17mm is a remarkable lens for that focal length. It is pretty heavy, I admit.</p>

<p>I wish I could have found that horde of people selling it used when I made the purchase.</p>

<p>I'm not convinced that the "flood" of TS-E lenses on the market is real, as opposed to merely an impression. It doesn't make enough difference to me to count them up, but I just don't see it myself.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>Thank you for your responses. You bring up relevant points and JDM's different view isn't necessarily in contradiction.<br>

I'm not sure how 'a lot' translates to 'flood' (quoted, at that) or to horde, but certainly there is no dearth of them, and I'm only even counting the EU.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>It really depends on what you shoot - for general photography you should probably not own one. They are useful for landscapes, architecture and product photography. They can also be used as excellent normal lenses - but manual focus. The 17F4 and 24 II are both great lenses even before you use tilt / shift. I only own the 17 F4 but have shot the 24 II. The 24 II is probably Canon's sharpest 24mm lens. I actually use longer lenses but I use old Mamiya M645 lenses on a Mirex adapter. This solution works very well and gives a 35mm lens (Canon made a 35 TS for FD but not EOS - indeed it was their only FD TS lens). <br>

You should also be aware that the prisms on some bodies (e.g. My 7D) can foul the lens or its controls - this is not an issue for the 5 or 1 series bodies which is what I generally shoot them with. <br>

It takes a lot of time and effort to become adept at using TS lenses and even then you can still get the odd random bad results (exposure is difficult in tilted mode!). This fact plus the much slower workflow may be why people buy them and later sell them. Just like any sport or hobby people will buy equipment that is not necessarily useful to them and discover this later. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Not sure what the point of this question is, but to lend some perspective there are about 20,000 Canon lenses on ebay.com and 17 of them are used TS-E lenses, 30 are used 16-25/2.8 L zooms and 50 are used 24-105/4 L zooms. So the 5 or so varieties of TS-E lenses are in fact pretty rare!</p>

<p>Of course there are many more new ones available but that is just mass marketing on ebay, and the TS-E lenses are no different than any other in this respect.</p>

<p>I bought one of the first used 17 TS-E lenses that came available a couple of years ago. Back then I only found about 1 every two months and I know that the market has not improved much since. </p>

<p>Pros will buy a lens for an extended purpose where renting does not make any sense and then sell it without losing as much as the rental would have cost. </p>

<p>TS-E lenses are capable of doing what no other lens or post processing can do. One must push the envelope of their own photography before they will recognize the need for one of these lenses though. It does not make sense to buy one and then try to figure out what it can do. I was so certain that I needed the 17 TS-E that I bought it before I had a camera body to put it on!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Sometimes people need to sell things in order to pay the bills. If you have a lens that you don't use very often and it will give you a good return for your money, it might be a good candidate for liquidation.</p>

<p>I cherish my TS-E 24 II. Many of my favorite images were taken with this lens or with the Nikon version (which isn't as good as the Canon but good enough in most cases). The Nikon has an actual aperture ring, which completely eliminates flicker from time lapse sequences. Want to shoot video at f/11? Now you can.</p>

<p>I have used view cameras extensively over the years. Transformation functions in photo editors are okay when you need to fix unavoidable distortion problems and you're willing to sacrifice some resolution, but physical movements are extremely powerful problem solvers for architectural and landscape photography.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24 II is probably Canon's sharpest 24mm lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24mm IS is as good, but, of course, cannot be tilted or shifted.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Robin - I have not used the new 24 IS but the TS is remarkable. I did set up the digital picture test of the two lenses and the TS lens is still sharper but of course considerably more expensive. Here is the DP side by side</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Philip. Yes, I agree. But I think these are pretty small differences in practice and of course with IS you can stop it down a bit if handholding.</p>