# Help!! 17 TS-E vs 16-35 II vs 17-40 vs 14II vs. Tokina 16-28 2.8 for Landscapes



## PixelReaper (Nov 15, 2012)

Hi everyone!

So I am leaving in 24 hours! to go to Washington and Portland OR. I shoot with the 5d mark II. I went nuts and bought the 17 TS-E, the 17-40 and 16-35 II and I am trying to decide which ones to keep and take along with me on the trip.

I am not experienced with TS-E but understand the main concepts and like how sharp they appear to be in the corners vs the zooms. I shoot with a Tripod and don't mind the lack of AF (but would prefer to have it!)

I like that the 16-35 is f/2.8 but I don't know if the image quality is enough to justify the price. and obviously the 17-40 is the budget friendly choice and can use my 77mm screw on filters (BW 10 stop ND and CPL)

I also ordered the Tokina 16-28 2.8 on sale for $750, but I have not tested it yet. The reviews I read seem to agree that it is at least as sharp as the 16-35II but is heavier and can not take filters.

I do not have have the 14II but have shot with the Rokinon 14 and know that the canon 14II is better all around and has auto focus to boot. My only concern with the 14 is that the ultra wide perspective can get old. Plus with the TS-E I can stich together shoot for really wide FOV.


So, with all that said, I turn to the opinions and expertise of the CR community for help. Just keep in mind I only have 24 hours to decide!!!

Thanks in advance for your responses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2012)

A TS-E lens is great for landscapes and for tall buildings and trees. I found 17mm too wide ofr my tastes, got the 24mm instead. Depending on budget, the combo of UWA zoom for versatility plus a TS-E is great. When I go on city walks, I often bring the 16-35 II and the TS-E 24 II (and a tripod, of course).


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 15, 2012)

The 17mm and the 17-40 for your trip.
-the ts-e is a ts-e, you'll need it for the sharpness and the tilt/shift effect
The 17-40 will work for trave, plus you can stop it down more

-keep the 14mm it has less distortion than any of your other lenses at their minimum zoom
-16-35 vs. 16-28 tricky

The 16-35 is able to hold filters, and has the extra 7mm at the long end. But the 16-35 is designed more for portraits.
The 16-28 is comparable to the Nikon 14-24 2.8, and has less vinyetting.
If you intent to have a landscape lens, keep the 16-28, sell the 16-35, and buy some filter holder equipment.
I'd keep the 16-28 if you like it
You'll have a pretty good set up
17mm ts-e:your tilt shift "master" lens
17-40: go everywhere do everything wide-angle/portrait zoom
14mm:stellar ultra wide angle, designed for landscapes, and scenery, really sharp. It will be your ts-e 17mm with af
16-28: the best landscape zoom, best for landscapes, scenery, wide-images, etc. for those situations wher composition is important.


----------



## Jesse (Nov 15, 2012)

By bought do you mean rented?


----------



## Jesse (Nov 15, 2012)

I'd go 14 and 17 TS-E just because they're the most creative lenses. I would've gone 14 and 24 TS-E if it were an option just because you don't need 2 ultra-wides. I recently took a trip to SF and rented the 16-35 and 17 TS-E. The 16-35 was rarely on my camera because the 17 was wide enough plus had so many creative ways of being used.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 15, 2012)

If you can take 1 lens, take the ts-e 17mm. If you can take 2, take the ts-e 17 and the 16-35L II. Each has its advntages. I like the 17 better for well composed shots, but the 16-35 is nice when you don't the time to set it up optimally.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 15, 2012)

PixelReaper said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> So I am leaving in 24 hours! to go to Washington and Portland OR. I shoot with the 5d mark II. I went nuts and bought the 17 TS-E, the 17-40 and 16-35 II and I am trying to decide which ones to keep and take along with me on the trip.
> 
> I am not experienced with TS-E but understand the main concepts and like how sharp they appear to be in the corners vs the zooms. I shoot with a Tripod and don't mind the lack of AF (but would prefer to have it!)



If you take the 24-105 with you, i recomend the ts-e 17. I dont know the zooms, but i had a 10-22 on crop, which matches the 16-35 s field of view.

Thats why:

If you take half an hour to look at the TS-e before your trip you'll know how to handle it. Without using tilt and shift it behaves like a really fine 17mm MF Lens. Focus confirmation in the Viewfinder is fine from f5.6 on, so you can easily use it handhold from f5.6 onwards.

With shift, metering fails which is tricky if you use flash, otherwise meter without shift, go to manual mode, set the metered result manually, shift and shoot. This needs 10 sec.. With flash you have to control the flash and the camera manually, i use try and error method for this. This needs time, but you are far beyound of what the zooms can do. If you take panorama shifts in consideration, you have a (multi shot) 11-17 FF Zoom, at least for static subjects.

With tilt, you have to set focus and tilt angle manually depending from each other, which is an iterative process. For this, i need tripod and several minutes of time. But you can take pics which no other equipment can. 

The whole between 17mm and your 24-105 isn't that big, i can easily accept this compromise and don't need the 17-24mm zoom range.

Disadvantage of the TS-e is that its front element attracts rain drops, which means in rainy weather you need an assistant who holds the umbrella.

If you can take in comlete only one lens with you, i would take one of the zooms, as 17mm is really wide and not suitable for all shots, together with the 24-105 i'd take the TS-e, you can learn a lot and have lots of fun.


----------



## Jesse (Nov 15, 2012)

How often do you use a flash on a 17mm lens?


----------



## BL (Nov 15, 2012)

perhaps i'm over simplifying, but for landscape needs, i'm going to assume for a moment use of a tripod and apertures between f/8-f/16.

you may be hard pressed to tell the difference in IQ from the lenses above with the above assumptions (focal length and perspective aside).

here's how i see it

17-40 = if you need to go light and on a budget (its nice if all your filters are 77mm already)
16-35 = if you need to handhold (f/4-f5.6 seems to favor the 16-35 vs 17-40) and want better sunstars
17 TS = if you want tilt/shift options


----------



## dafrank (Nov 15, 2012)

I've owned the 24TS, tried out the 17TS, and owned both the 16-35 v2 and the 17-40. My opinion depends on just how rich you are. If money doesn't matter, or at least matters little, then hands down, get the 17TS and 16-35 v2. The 16-35 is "killer" sharp and contrasty in the center, and depending on the QC of the particular one you buy, between good and very good on the edges and between fair and good in the extreme corners, where "un-flatness" of field rears its ugly head. A good copy of the 16-35 is always going to be better than a good copy of the 17-40, but, stopped down to, say, f/8-13, the advantage is very, very slim, except in contrast and distortion, where the 16-35 remains a little better still. The 16-35 is generally better on the wide side, from 16mm to about 28mm; at 35mm, the quality is lower. The 17-40 IQ is a little more even - not as good at 17mm as is the 16-35 at 16mm, but not as bad at 40mm as is the 16-35 is at 35mm. Also, don't under-estimate that the f/2.8 max aperture of the 16-35 helps a little with focus, both manually and in autofocus. All this means little, however, if the price of the 16-35 is prohibitive. And, the 17-40 is also a little bit smaller and lighter, but not much, and a comparative bargain.

As far as the 17TS is concerned, if you want the best extreme wide angle Canon makes, then this is it, period. It's very expensive, however, and, for landscapes, rather than exterior architecture and interior photography, I'm really not very convinced that a lens this wide is really necessary. But, if your style of shooting is one that that focal length works best for you, then run, don't walk, to the store to get it. Because of the lens's bigger projected image circle, neccessitated by the shift function, the corners of this wide angle, used with no movements, are really very, very good and very unlike any of Canon's ultra wide zooms. Of course, depending on how much swing and/or tilt you might apply in an actual exposure, the corner quality will vary quite a bit. No question though, if you need a 17mm focal length lens to be sharp across the entire frame, this is the only one to get.

The 14mm is a great lens and also better than Canon's ultra wide zooms in general IQ, down to the corners. However, it is short of the IQ performance of and, clearly inferior in versatility to the 17TS. If you need the extra angle of view that it affords, it is a great lens. But, for general travel and landscape type use, I see 14mm as potentially a lot of fun to use, but not exactly necessary. I see its use falling most into the rare times when you just plain need something as wide as possible because your back is literally to the wall, but you neither want to have the distortion of a semi-fisheye nor go to the bother of stitching a couple of 17TS images together - which yields a potentially even wider angle of view than does a single 14mm exposure. Or, when you want to use its resultingly exagerrated perspective to "make a point" in your picture. Otherwise, it's an expensive luxury that's not often neccessary for most people.

As to third party wides, I can't say because I don't own any. I would urge you to try them for yourself. If they work for you in terms of IQ, build, handling, reliability and longevity, fast and accurate focus, etc., by all means get one, because they'll always be cheaper. Cheaper and still adequate for the job at hand is always a good thing for those of us with less than unlimited resources. But, also keep in mind that a ghood "L" lens almost always holds its value better at the back end, when you may finally want to sell it years later, and you may sometimes even be able to sell it at a price higher than your original purchase price, or at least at a really good percentage of it. Good lenses, unlike camera bodies, really are, most of the time, closer to an actual "investment," even though that word is usually carelessly thrown around when purchasing almost anything that a salesman can talk you into.

Good luck,
David


----------



## PixelReaper (Nov 16, 2012)

+1 to everyone who replied. I think I am going to go with the TS-E 17 and the 17-40 (with my 10 stop ND and CPL)

I should have mentioned the other pieces in the kit which will be the 35 L 1.4 and the Olympus OM-D E-M5 with 4 lenses (Leica 25 1.4, Oly 45 1.8, and Panasonic 12-35 / 35-100 f/2.8), which together weigh less than the 5D II with the TS-E 17!! Also bringing RRS tripod TVC-24L, which for anyone looking for a light medium size tripod with crazy versatility and the bees knees for build quality, I can not recommend it enough. It's hands down the best tripod I have ever handled and worth every penny of its astronomical price.  

Thanks again, and i hope to posts some pics after the trip. Happy Thanksgiving to all.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Nov 16, 2012)

I had tried shooting with all of those lenses except the Tokina for landscapes.

I've settled with the 17 TSE and 24-70 2.8 II landscape combo where I placed a preference in corner sharpness. The 17-40/16-35/14ii just didn't cut it for me even between f/8-f/16. 

While the 24mm tse II is shaper than the 17mm tse, I found for tight spaces like interiors I just need the 17mm. Sometimes like along coastal shores, cliffs, or fenced off paths where the 17mm could be too wide the 24-70 is a good compromise providing versatility without the sacrifice in image quality. The additional 2.8 gives those rare few chances you want to experiment with long exposure astro-photography like shots as well.


----------

