24mm TS-E I vs. II vs. Rokinon

[shawngibson]

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>The Mark I gets a lot of bad reviews, but the images on Flickr look good to my eye...which of course means nothing given it's just little compressed Internet images.</p>

<p>Is the Mk I really so bad, compared to the Mk II or the Rokinon?</p>

<p>I can't afford the Mk II...much as I'd like the extra movement and larger image circle.</p>

<p>What flaws of the Mk I can NOT be fixed in PhotoShop?</p>

<p>Merci:)<br>

Shawn</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I am curious where you're finding your "lot of bad reviews" of the TS-E 24mm i. <br /> The TS-E 24mm was a respected lens before the ii came out. That the ii is "better" is why there is a "ii" in the first place, but that does not make the version 1 into a bow-wow.</p>

<p>As the Photozone.de review at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/154-canon-ts-e-24mm-f35-l-test-report--review indicates, version i was not perfect, but it was still a very good tilt-shift lens (in that same review, you may find some hints as to what PS can do to 'correct' it).<br>

<br /> The mark i has the added advantage of being the "old model" and therefore <em>may</em> (possibility, not certainty) be picked up used at lower prices than before.<br /> I'd personally rather have a used Canon mark i than the Rokinon, although the latter lens is not awful, by any means, or so according to a knowledgeable review by <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/samyang24ts.html">Keith Cooper</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could I use the lens for my work - yes for much of it. In some respects it's better than the Mk1 Canon TS-E24, although that does have electronic aperture control.<br /> The lens is of good, but not outstanding quality, but once again I'm used to using the much more expensive Canon version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, if you really, really need a tilt-shift lens the Canon TS-E 24mm mark ii is clearly the (expensive) way to go ( http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/603-canon24f35tse2 ).</p>

<p>Tilt-shift lenses are very specialized tools, and only you can answer the question of whether Photoshop or some other way of stretching and pummeling the pixels from a standard wide angle will serve you as well.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I have the latest version of the 24TS and it's an incredible lens. I very much doubt the older version is "bad"!</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>The original version actually has one advantage: the DoF scale is larger and more usable. Of course, this may not matter on a 24 mm lens unless you’re doing extreme near/far.</p>

<p>One caveat, though: when the lens is tilted, the marked distances don’t mean anything, so you need to determine focus points visually. And you need to remember that “near” and “far” are angular rather than linear distances. But it’s easy enough once you’ve done it a few times.</p>

<p>I have the original. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good nonetheless. I’ve never used the Mk II, so I can’t give you a comparison.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Thanks all. I'm glad I posted this. To be fair, most of the 'reviews' I've read have been comparisons between the Mk I & II, in which case I suppose it just makes sense that the II will be the 'shiny new better' of the two.</p>

<p>I am also glad that looking at samples myself, I find nothing bad about the Mk I, so I'm happy to take all reviews with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>My goal is to pair the 24mm up with the 90mm TS-E for a pair of portrait lenses (24mm on APS-C is a favourite of mine for horizontal portraiture) as well as multi-shot stitches with my 360deg. head. I'm not sure if one can do multi-stitching with a perspective-corrected image, though...any thoughts there?</p>

<p>For decades I've been artificially blurring images in the same or similar manner to a tilt-shift lens, for example like some of Paolo Roversi's older work (he works mostly with large format, of course). I've always wanted to get a real tilt-shift setup. So here I am:)</p>

<p>I'd also like to get a circa 2:1 macro setup with a telephoto lens (I have a focus rail available, and do image stacking with Helicon, using a pair of microscopes, so I'd like to do the same with a camera). Would the 90mm with a couple of extension tubes achieve this? I suspect if I can get 2:1-ish, the movements of the lens will reduce the need for stacking somewhat...</p>

<p>As you can see, I'm trying to get the most out of the least amount of gear, largely because I only have about $3000Cdn to spend at the end of April (yep, bonus time lol).</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p> </p>

[shawngibson]

<p>An example of how I use 'tilt' which is to say, selective focus:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18212397-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Edit: This was a Contax S2 with Zeiss 50/1.4, Delta 100 in PMK Pyro scanned using a Minolta scanner. The "tilt" as well as all other modifications are in PhotoShop.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_rowe]

<p>I have the Canon and it is a fine lens. Used as a straight up prime it is sharp while at extremes it is less so in the corners mostly, still a great lens though as it can do things no other lens can. Keep in mind it is a manual focus lens. Typically Tilt/Shift lens are used on a tripod using live view so they can be a bit tricky to use especially handheld. It is easier to use the shift feature than tilt as focus is easier. From what I have read over the years I'd say they gather dust for most people who have them as it really is a specialty lens and needs some time and effort to learn and use. 24mm still has quite the DOF so when tilted the focus drop off from the focal plane may not be as apparent as you expect (this surprised me a bit when I first got the lens years ago). I see some options at lensrentals.com if that is available to you maybe you could rent a T/S beforehand to see if the whole T/S portrait idea works for your needs. If you do plan a purchase then I'd head over to fredmiranda and get a used one.<br>

Good luck</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Thanks Peter. I'm a manual focus person. Both the 24mm and 90mm will be on Sony bodies with Metabones IV adapters to carry aperture info to the body. Don't care about AF.</p>

<p>Between my eye, focus peaking, and magnification, I'm sure I'll be fine. I'm not a sports shooter:)<br>

Shawn</p>

[ed_avis2]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure if one can do multi-stitching with a perspective-corrected image, though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Is this a post-processing question or are you asking about the lenses? I would have expected you would stitch together the large image from the multiple shots and then apply keystone correction, etc, to the stitched image. If you want to use the shift function on the lens as a way to avoid tilting the camera upward to reach the top of a building (for example), then of course you can do that (though you will be moving further towards the edge of the image circle, so optical quality will be worse than in the centre, particularly with the 24mm).</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>If you want to do macro work with the 90mm then consider a dioptre at the front as well as an extension tube at the back. Canon sell a suitable close-up lens I think. You may also want to experiment with a 1.4x teleconverter depending on whether a cheap one fits your budget. In the end, though, there are plenty of 90mm macro lenses (like the old Tamron adaptall, with an adaptor) which are available dirt cheap and have image quality better or equal to the TS-E, with closer focusing too - just they don't tilt or shift.</p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421271/0?keyword=canon,24mm#13483241</p>

<p>used 24mm T/S for $1375 or so - in mint condition.</p>

<p>11-24mm zoom lens for $2450 used in mint condition: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421549/0?keyword=canon,24mm#13485747</p>

[mark_schafer1]

It all depends what you need it for. I had the version I and upgraded to the newer II when it became available. The CA Is

much better, overall it's sharper and better corrected, the coating is also improved.

 

There's an obvious reason why Canon upgrades their lenses every 10-15 years, computers get quicker, technology improves and resolution gets better.

So while inherently there's nothing wrong with the older one, and Lightroom/Photoshop/Capture One can improve any

image significantly, the newer one is a great improvement.

 

If you don't need the latest and greatest and could use the lens movement for creative or technical reasons go for it.

 

If you shoot Interiours in color for a living and have to deliver high res files to your clients, go for the newer one.