# Can the 11-24 replace the 17 mm T/S as far as......



## Dholai (Feb 4, 2015)

.... the shift function is concerned? 

I am guessing "yes" as the image circle has to be much bigger at 11 mm and may be bigger than the 17 mm T/S even at 12 mm.

I use my T/S only to shoot tall structures ( to be honest I have never been able to use the tilt function to my advantage, mainly because of lack of knowledge/expertise). I am thinking that using an 11-24 might be a better idea as metering/ AF capability will be advantageous.

Can someone throw more light on it ?

Thanks

Dholai


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 4, 2015)

Dholai said:


> .... the shift function is concerned?
> 
> I am guessing "yes" as the image circle has to be much bigger at 11 mm and may be bigger than the 17 mm T/S even at 12 mm.
> 
> ...


If you shoot level and crop, yes, but I wouldn't see it was a replacement because you would need to crop 1/3 to 1/2 the frame.


----------



## Dholai (Feb 4, 2015)

Thanks


----------



## KitsVancouver (Feb 5, 2015)

I can't answer the tilt function, but I haven't used my 17mm TS much because:

The font element scares me a bit so I don't use it around people too much.
I tried to learn the TS features, but every time I learn a bit, I forget by the time I use the lens again. 

The lack of AF




Dholai said:


> .... the shift function is concerned?
> 
> I am guessing "yes" as the image circle has to be much bigger at 11 mm and may be bigger than the 17 mm T/S even at 12 mm.
> 
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 5, 2015)

Here's an example of UWA vs. T/S lenses used for two _similar_ photos. The first photo of Florida's Historic Capitol was shot with the Sigma 12-24 II at 12mm with the camera perfectly level. That meant I didn't need shift and I was able to fit everything in the frame and crop it. The second photo was shot with the TS-E 17 f/4 and shifted. Framing, lighting and other differences aside, I think both photos are definitely workable and you could even add sky in PS to the cropped version if you needed it for editorial purposes.

5DII + Sigma 12-24 II @12mm, f/11, 1/6s, ISO 6400, +1EV - top & bottom cropped - blue hour lighting






5DIII + TS-E 17 @ f/16, 1/40s, ISO 800, +1EV - full frame, shifted - golden hour lighting


----------



## andrewflo (Feb 5, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here's an example of UWA vs. T/S lenses used for two _similar_ photos. The first photo of Florida's Historic Capitol was shot with the Sigma 12-24 II at 12mm with the camera perfectly level. That meant I didn't need shift and I was able to fit everything in the frame and crop it. The second photo was shot with the TS-E 17 f/4 and shifted. Framing, lighting and other differences aside, I think both photos are definitely workable and you could even add sky in PS to the cropped version if you needed it for editorial purposes.
> 
> 5DII + Sigma 12-24 II @12mm, f/11, 1/6s, ISO 6400, +1EV - top & bottom cropped - blue hour lighting
> 
> ...



Great examples. Interesting thought... I think the 11-24 makes a little more sense now that I see this comparison


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 5, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> Great examples. Interesting thought... I think the 11-24 makes a little more sense now that I see this comparison


Thanks and I picked up this tip in this blog from Sigma Pro Kevin Ames. There's lots of good examples and inspiration about using ultrawides in it:
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/lens-explorations-12-24mm-f4-5-5-6-dg-hsm-ii/


----------



## Dholai (Feb 6, 2015)

Mackguyver,

Thank you very much for the examples. This was exactly what I had in my mind.
As far as the tilt function is concerned... well.... I dont remember taking one picture successfully so far where there was a great DOF at f3.5. Just don't know how to do it! :'(

Anyway, I will likely get one for this kind of situations even though I use my 16-35 much less then the 24-70 ! So difficult to compose a landscape in this UWA

Thanks everybody

Dholai


----------

