# Upgrade to a 5Dmk2 or TS-e lens?



## NWPhil (Dec 15, 2011)

Hi,
I have a canon 5D mk1 and happy with except when it comes to lack of live view and the LCD quality. 
Mostly I shoot landscapes, but I like macro, or close-up nature details i.e. leafs with dew, mushrooms, detail on trees, flowers...
Right now, I have a 15mm 2.8, a 17-40mm 4l, a 35mm 1.4L, 100mm 2.8 macro and an oldie 80-200mm 2.8L.
Been looking to at the ts-e 24mm and even the 17mm, against upgrading the body.
I really don't care for the video abilities of the mk2, as i have the lumix lx-3, and the small videos I shoot, are good enough for me - yes, it's just a hobbie, and mostly done while hiking or vacations.
I would like to hear your opinions, in special if you have done the upgrade from mk1 to 2 and/or own a ts-e lens - I really like the possibilties it can provide but wonder if it will be too much of a specialized camera, as I normally hike out with only two lens
Thanks


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 15, 2011)

Sold my TS-E 90, kept my 5D MK II. Both were excellent, but the camera is worth it, particularly at todays prices.

I did have a 5D (original), and the live view, larger LCD, higher resolution, etc are a step up. However, your 5D is still a excellent camera. 

At this point, I'd almost say wait and see if anything new is announced in January before CES. If a new 5D MK III has that new 18mp sensor or its a 32mp body, it will be very popular, so its value will hold up either way for many years. If we have to wait until September for a possible announcement, you will miss out on a lot.


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 15, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Sold my TS-E 90, kept my 5D MK II. Both were excellent, but the camera is worth it, particularly at todays prices.
> 
> I did have a 5D (original), and the live view, larger LCD, higher resolution, etc are a step up. However, your 5D is still a excellent camera.
> 
> At this point, I'd almost say wait and see if anything new is announced in January before CES. If a new 5D MK III has that new 18mp sensor or its a 32mp body, it will be very popular, so its value will hold up either way for many years. If we have to wait until September for a possible announcement, you will miss out on a lot.



Hi, 
Thanks for the reply.
So your opinion is to wait to see if indeed mk3 comes out or not and in which specs; meaning will affect mk2 price or not, but still worth to upgrade to mk2, if the release is delayed till the end of next year or so?

What's your opinion on the TS-E lenses btw?


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

I wouldn't wait if you are happy with what the 5DII can provide you (meaning you've used one in a shop, or a friends or you spent a few extra bucks to rent one for a weekend). So if you really like the tool, then go get it. It already has seen it's price drops for if you buy one now, it will not be seen at lower prices for a reasonable amount of time, making this a safe time to buy. If it's not that big of an upgrade for your purposes, then you might as well continue to wait (and save) and dish out full price for a launch 5DIII or wait even longer and buy the mark II (new or used) sometime after the 5DIII arrives. Really this comes down entirely to price and time spent waiting and how much a 5D II would help you today. If the camera would really help you now, you would not be making a mistake to buy it now, especially if you would make more money doing so.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 15, 2011)

I bought the TS-E 90 to use with my 5D MK II for product photography. I have a small online business, and a fairly small light table and photography area where I tether my camera to my pc capture images of my products.

The TS-E 90 was a wonderful lens for manual focus, I could tilt the focal plane to get a wole product in focus. Only my Zeiss Hasselblad Distagon lenses might be better as far as smooth and easy focusing. However, I have a fixed camera mount, and that created problems with larger products. I have a 24-105mm L zoom, but it did not always focus closely enough.

Finally, I settled on a 7D and 15-85mm which has a great zoom range, as well as close focusing, so it stays put in my studio most of the time. Its overkill, but in warmer weather i take the 7D outdoors for wildlife photography, while the 5D MK II is for theatre and other extreme low light photography.

The price on the 5D MK II has dropped twice this week, so who knows if it will go lower. Already, there is one seller asking $1899.


----------



## willrobb (Dec 16, 2011)

I can't say about the TS-E lens as I haven't used one (although everyone says it's amazing, probably the best landscape lens anywhere), but I have used the 5D classic and now have two 5DmkII bodies. I have the 5DmkII's because I need the higher ISO, I don't use video either, but to be honest the live view is useful, but the LCD although better than the 5D classic LCD, still isn't that great.

To be honest, I would say stick with the 5D body if you are doing landscape work and won't be shooting video. I think you can get an angle finder which makes focusing the TS-E lens easier as well, might be better than getting the 5DmkII.....but the prices are rapidly dropping.....


----------



## tron (Dec 16, 2011)

TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II by all means. You can do most of the work with the EOS you have.
On the other hand the specific TS-E will help you take better landscape and architectural pictures.
The only problem you might have in the future is to get this lens some company: The TS-E 17mm L


----------



## ejenner (Dec 16, 2011)

That is a tough choice. Personally I don't know what I'd do shooting landscapes without live-view now, but a TS-E opens up real possibilities, while live view and more pixels just makes it easier and perhaps improves IQ if you crop or print large.

For pure ease and enjoyment of the photography process, maybe the mkII, for opening up more creative opportunities, the TS-E. I can also imagine the TS-E might well produce superior images on the body you have than the 17-40 on a mkII.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 16, 2011)

Personally, I haven't used a "real" (canon-brand) TS-E on my 7D, but I have used a lot of medium-format glass through a tilt adapter.
The one thing that I can say is: I love live-view.
Maybe it's because the focussing screen on the 7D isn't the best (i'm contemplating a katz-eye screen as it is), but even if it were ok, the live-view is extremely useful for zooming in on the image to check that everything's in focus before you fire the shutter.
(Yes, I know that people used TS lenses way before live-view, but it's just so much easier with it than without).

Unfortunately, in your predicament, it's one or the other.
For the TS-E 24 II, it's a marvellous lens. One of the best in the entire lineup. Definitely sharpest for its length. Always will be (or at least for 10 years or so). It's got a price now, and that price will only slowly slowly come down over the next 10 years or so when it finally gets a III-upgrade (it's probably the lens that least needs an upgrade and will be for many many years).
On the camera-side of things, I'd recommend waiting at least until January, if nothing gets announced before CES/PMA, then there's a very good chance there won't be a 5D3 on a shelf before next xmas, and you can buy a 5D2 safe in the knowledge that it will remain current for another year. If something _is_ announced at CES/PMA (i doubt it), then there's a good chance that the remaining 5D2-stock will go even cheaper than it is now.

Given your current kit of 15/35/17-40, the TS-E 24 on a 5D is going to give you way better results than current lenses on 5D2 (unless you want to print billboards), if I were you i'd be going the TS-E 24 route, being forced to use the viewfinder might even mean you learn more than us lazy slobs with live-view making it easier for us...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> The one thing that I can say is: I love live-view.
> Maybe it's because the focussing screen on the 7D isn't the best (i'm contemplating a katz-eye screen as it is), but even if it were ok, the live-view is extremely useful for zooming in on the image to check that everything's in focus before you fire the shutter.
> (Yes, I know that people used TS lenses way before live-view, but it's just so much easier with it than without).
> 
> ...be going the TS-E 24 route, being forced to use the viewfinder might even mean you learn more than us lazy slobs with live-view making it easier for us...



Live View makes it much easier. Not just for focusing - TS mucks with metering, too, resulting in over or under exposure depending on which way and how far you TS. So, you have to meter with the lens at neutral, then move it. Live View takes care of that, too, since metering is done from the imaging sensor.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> TS mucks with metering, too



Yeah, that too. I'd forgotten because it's been ages since I used the viewfinder for any tilt, lensbaby, or even MF-prime lens (Most of my old-primes meter weirdly even in stop-down mode, damn those soviet lenses with their beautifully shiny copper blades).


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 16, 2011)

I tend to use tethered shooting with the TSE-24 - makes it much easier to see the whole picture


----------



## niccyboy (Dec 16, 2011)

I use both the 90 and the 24 tilt on my 5dmk2.

You will definitely find some benefits when upgrading to the mk2 over the classic.

If you are using the tilts i recommend the mk2. especially when you are out and about not in the studio.

My personal observations are that (when i can't shoot tethered)... i find composing the shot, making the relevant adjustments and focussing far far far easier through the live view screen rather than the viewfinder. Shooting with tilts is the only time i ever use live view on my mk2.

The other is reviewing shots, the classic screen is awful compared to what is available now... 

i think with the available second hand ones and the ridiculously cheap prices for the 5d2 at BH etc... it's a great time to pick one up... If using the classic now hasn't held you back a brand new mk3 in 6-12 months time (and for 1k or so more) isn't going to bother you. With regards to 'i don't know if it will be too much of a specialised camera'... i don't see what you mean here, it's essentially just an upgraded mk1 with video capabilities. 

If you were to choose between the two i'd upgrade the body and hire a lens.... Then you get the benefits across all of your photography and lenses. Or buy both


----------



## torger (Dec 16, 2011)

I use the TS-E 24mm II a lot with my 5Dmk2. If you like landscape photography I strongly recommend this lens. It is much better than version I and is as good as wide angle gets on the 135 system. Using tilt is hell if you don't have a modern live view though. Well, any manual focus lens benefits from live view. It is usually more fun with a new lens than a new camera body though, so I'd buy the lens first but save up to upgrade to a new body with good live view later, because you will want it.

Concerning macro work, the TS-E 24mm can do flowers and stuff (done that) since the near limit is such that you can put the object almost against the lens front element, but the TS-E 90mm is better suited if the main use will be macro.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 16, 2011)

I'm not Mt. Spokane, but I bought a TS-E 90mm and use it on APS-C. If I could trade it for a 5D Mark II...that would be a good deal, but if I had to give up on the 90mm forever, that'd be tough.

It's no macro lens but it will do well enough. You can take portraits of big bugs, if they're slow and not flighty. Of course it will do OK for natural elements, although I would not count on the tilt feature to put everything you want in a closeup into focus - the tilt seems to have less of an effect close-up than at longer distances.



dr croubie said:


> [...] if I were you i'd be going the TS-E 24 route, being forced to use the viewfinder might even mean you learn more than us lazy slobs with live-view making it easier for us...


Using Live View is a chore, and it is a necessary chore if you want to get the best possible sharpness. It has nothing to do with laziness, and using the VF when you should be using Live View only means you're stubborn and stupid. There is nothing to be learned from failing to explore the uses of Live View.


----------



## torger (Dec 16, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Using Live View is a chore, and it is a necessary chore if you want to get the best possible sharpness. It has nothing to do with laziness, and using the VF when you should be using Live View only means you're stubborn and stupid. There is nothing to be learned from failing to explore the uses of Live View.



While I would not express myself as drastic , I also want to push for live view. For some unknown reason it has among some users a poor reputation, like it would be used only by amateurs etc. I guess it has something to do with similarity to point-and-shoot cameras, and the view that "real" cameras have viewfinders.

However what live view actually is in DSLRs is a digital version of the ground glass found on technical view cameras (which don't have viewfinders). Instead of the traditional focusing method where you use a loupe on the large ground glass, you zoom digitally in live view and adjust focus (and tilt). For high res still life photography a good live view is a key function.

Medium format backs don't have live view, but that is not because it is "unnecessary", but because CCD tech which is in those large sensors rather than CMOS do not work well for live view. Due to the lack of live view MF tech camera users use very expensive precision helicon focusing and laser rangefinders to do focusing (and/or use sliding back with ground glass, but these are prone to focusing errors due to misalignment between glass and sensor), all which would be largely unnecessary if live view were available. There is live view in the recent Phase One IQ180, but you typically need a ND filter on the lens to avoid overexposing live view when it is engaged (because of the CCD tech).


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 16, 2011)

I shoot tethered - the mega liveview. Works well for me


----------



## Viggo (Dec 16, 2011)

I use the TS-E 17mm, and it's by far my favorite wideangle, I used to have the 14 II, but the converging lines limited it soo much for me. I thought the 17, especially after reading all the tech-stuff around, that it would be very challenging to use properly, but nothing could be further from the truth, it's supereasy to use and gives AWESOME results. IQ-wise it's one of the best, only surpassed by the TS-E 24 II, BUT I didn't get it, because I needed wider and also already own the 24 f1,4 II.

I would go for the 17, no doubt, it will make your images stand out like no camera-upgrade can do.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 16, 2011)

torger said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > Using Live View is a chore, and it is a necessary chore if you want to get the best possible sharpness. It has nothing to do with laziness, and using the VF when you should be using Live View only means you're stubborn and stupid. There is nothing to be learned from failing to explore the uses of Live View.
> ...


Don't mind me. Others (including myself) have pointed out the Live View function as a modern ground glass, but this is just a case of myself and the kind Dr. going around (in this case, because again he insisted on saying something indefensible and insulting, apparently as a kind of joke, but misleading if read as actual advice).



Viggo said:


> I use the TS-E 17mm, and it's by far my favorite wideangle, I used to have the 14 II, but the converging lines limited it soo much for me.


Indeed. The 17mm is my ONLY wide-angle (the TS 35mm will hopefully be joining it soon, though) and it performs quite well! Although, given the price and current 5D Mark II prices, you'd have something of a personal deficit by the time you bought one - whereas the TS-E 90mm could be bought with some cash differential (more than half the price, actually) of a 5D Mark II, so that's worth considering.

I like the 17mm best when I can put it right up next to something (although this is a style of photograph I find more challenging to get right, since the wide-angle perspective - even on APS-C - doesn't really match my compositional eye well, but occasionally I can pull it off nicely).


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 16, 2011)

Thank you all for taking the time replying with your insights - (I tried to post last night as a separate post without quoting anyone, but did not work???)
The toss now is really between the 17 or 24 mm. I do like close-ups and wide angles - the reasoning to keep my 17-40, is solely for travel purposes, as paired with the 80-200, they take care of most situations.
I can wait on the 5dmk2 - maybe in a year I might decide that indeed I am up for the 3rd generation after all :
My other lens in the wish list is the 180mm macro, but that's another story.
In either scenario, the 17 or 24 are great lenses, but is either one or the 5D2. It will be a matter of finding the best deal out there, as there are not many in the used segment.


'It ain't over til' the fat lady sings'


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 16, 2011)

The 180 is a great macro lens as it means you get a full shot without disturbing the wildlife - even more so with a 1.4 on it ....


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 17, 2011)

High on my list is the 17mm TS-E. If you don't need the video or 21 mp for your photos (while using the 17-40mm), then go with the lens.

If you go with the 5Dm2 and if you keep both bodies, you could have two different lenses on them ready to go.

If you are taking photos where you aren't able to wait 20 seconds to change a lens, it might be something to think about.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 17, 2011)

The TS-E 17mm does nice "close up" shots, but the perspective of close objects is hard to control (i.e. it appears distorted). The TS-E 90mm does nice near-macro stuff, too, but I wouldn't count out a real macro lens for that. On the macro side...I am considering one of the Sigma 180mm macros, simply because it's half price of the Canon and newer too.


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 20, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> The TS-E 17mm does nice "close up" shots, but the perspective of close objects is hard to control (i.e. it appears distorted). The TS-E 90mm does nice near-macro stuff, too, but I wouldn't count out a real macro lens for that. On the macro side...I am considering one of the Sigma 180mm macros, simply because it's half price of the Canon and newer too.



Can't make my mind about choosing the 17mm or the 24mm - I like ultra-wide, and I can where would become of use in narrow view areas (either urban or wild) - otherwise in large view landscapes, yes, indeed a lot of stuff will be too far away.
the 15mm and the 17-40 cover all that. My justification for the 24mm, iis that it would close the gap as a prime, between the 15mm and 35mm, and yet with almost the same quality as the ef24mm f1.4
As far as the macro, the 100mm covers most of my needs, and I can always slap my 1.4x extender or tubes, to gain distance or come close - yes, there is a "price" for that in image quality, but the 180mm is such a big chunk of glass...

in a different note, the ts-e 24mm price seems to be dropping lately, while the 17 remains more stable. Interesting to see such a wide range on the 24mm mk1, but seems to be a lot of confusing from the sellers, as some are listing them as mk2, or pricing it as a used one


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 21, 2011)

I ought to update myself and mention that I've switched to looking at extension tubes - they should work great on the TS-E 90mm and I hear good things about using them on the 135mm f/2L as well. I don't expect as much working distance as from a 180mm macro, though.


----------



## NWPhil (Dec 22, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > Edwin Herdman said:
> ...




Hi Edwin,
Thanks for your insights.
Did you ever used the ts-e 24mm?
Can't make my mind between that and the 17mm - and no, buying both is out of question :'(
24 is the a missing ling on my wide angles, but with a 1.4x extender and/or if I keep the 40d, I can "reach the 24mm view. 
Price wise, there is not much of a difference.
I guess I have to rent both to get a better idea, but I would like to have some feedack as far as more "usefulness" of either lens - it's quite a difference from 17 to 24mm as far as view angle...
Thanks


----------



## RobertG. (Dec 23, 2011)

I recently bought the TS-E 24 II and TS-E 90 instead of a 5d Mark II. I decided to wait at least until January with the cam. The TS-E 24 I bought because I can use filters with it and if I need a wider angle I can still use the shift. I also bought the Zoerk rear-shift-adapter which works with the TS-E 17 & 24. It lets me fix the lens on a tripod and the cam is tilted or shifted instead of the lens, so I can avoid any paralax errors. The adapter fixes the lens on the tripod in the nodal point of each lense, so now I can create perfect panos even on minimum focus distance and use either the shift or rotate the whole lense like a normal lense when stitching panos (or use both together for a super wide angle with vertical shift in portrait orientation and turning the adapter/whole lense in horizontal orientation for a multi-row pano). This versatility is simply not possible with just a new camera body...

Proper landscape shots without a pol filter and/or grad nd filters is unthinkable for me, so the TS-E 17 was not ann option.

The TS-E 90 I got for the longer focal length, the superb sharpness and the macro possibilities, although I have a macro lense. I really love this lense since the first shot and my EF 85 1.8 will gather some dust pretty soon


----------

