# Which TS lens is better



## Marek Truchlik (Oct 22, 2013)

Hi, I´m looking forward to welcome TS lens into my roaster around Christmas. 
I would like to know your opinion, which one is better:
17/4 or 24/3.5 II?
From reviews I know that 24mm is incredible sharp, plus is also can take filters. But I would be aiming for something wider.
17mm is great lens to but what I can read is that is as not sharp to tht corners as 24mm. Some articles says that Lee anounced also filter system for this lens which can be also pretty interesting.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 22, 2013)

These lenses are both great. Optically and mechanically they are both outstanding. The last thing I would worry about is sharpness. Make your choice based on what focal length you prefer. You will be very happy with the results. 

24mm is my favorite wide angel for general photography, but I must admit that the 17mm TS-E has become a new favorite. If I had to settle for one, I would probably go for the 17mm.


----------



## tron (Oct 22, 2013)

I got first the TS-E 24 and then the TS-E 17. If I were to start all over I would start with the 17.


----------



## rs (Oct 22, 2013)

Choosing the correct focal length for your requirements is much more important than chasing absolute optical perfection wide open. 

Ignoring perspective control (which is usually used in conjunction with one below), a TS-E lens is primarily used for:

1) tripod mounting and setting up for majority of the scene in focus - this usually involves stopping down as far as you can before diffraction sets in, and tilting the lens to bring that deep plain of focus in line with most of the scene. So no worries about the corners at f3.5/f4 there. 

2) limiting apparent DoF by tilting the lens the wrong way, and shooting wide open. In that scenario, you want the corners blurred anyway. 

It's not a lens for taking pictures of brick walls or test charts hand held, wide open. While you might be able to, I can't think of many uses for wide open sharp corners with a lens like that. And finally, the TS-E 17/4 is phenomenally good wide open compared to almost any other comparably wide angle lens.

Your decision should be based primarily on what focal length you need, with filter considerations second and wide open corner sharpness differences a distant third.


----------



## infared (Oct 22, 2013)

tron said:


> I got first the TS-E 24 and then the TS-E 17. If I were to start all over I would start with the 17.


I bought the 17mm TSE II (incredible) Lens first...based on the fact that (much to my surprise), I could use my Canon 1.4X III to increase the focal length of the 17mm to 24mm and get as-good (OR BETTER !), IQ as the 24mm TSE.

I already owned the 1.4X III to use with my 70-200mm...and NEVER would have considered using it on a super wide-angle lens...BUT ....I find that the combo is INDEED impressive! Of course you lose an f/stop from the 17mm making the the combo quite a bit slower slower than the 24mm TSE (f/5.6 vs f/3.5 on the 24mm)...but considering all of my work with the lens is done on a tripod and low DOF isn't something that I am usually looking for with a super WA....for me it was like buying two TSE's for the price of one! I am AMAZED at the results with the 1.4X III. It goes against all I have learned over the years...but there it is.
Something to consider when looking at these lenses.
You still have the drawbacks of filter placement, protruding element of the 17mm...it is a little more cumbersome ...but I find it to be worth the money savings for me. If I was a pro, who shot Architecture all of the time, perhaps not.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 22, 2013)

Both TS-Es are very good at what they do, so it comes down to which focal length suits your needs better (as others have already stated).

Both TS-Es can use extenders, but the image degrades slightly. The 17 also has slightly less swing than the 24, so the 17 + 1.4x will not be able to correct as much as the 24 does natively.

For buildings, especially interiors, I use the 17 primarily. For landscapes, it's the 24. I also find that TS-E 24 panoramas are more pleasing than the 17s because the subject to camera distance is longer and the foreground objects aren't stressed as much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2013)

As others stated, you should decide based on focal length only. Personally, I picked the TS-E 24L II as my preferred focal length, after spending some time shooting my intended TS-E subjects with at both 17mm and 24mm (testing was actually done with the 7D + 10-22mm; I bought the 16-35L II and sold the 10-22mm about a month after getting the TS-E 24L II). 



infared said:


> I bought the 17mm TSE II (incredible) Lens first...based on the fact that (much to my surprise), I could use my Canon 1.4X III to increase the focal length of the 17mm to 24mm and get as-good (OR BETTER !), IQ as the 24mm TSE.


Better? If you're referring to the original TS-E 24L, maybe - but the TS-E 24L II is sharper than the bare TS-E 17mm, and decidedly sharper than the 17 + 1.4x (very obvious in the TDP crop comparison).


----------



## surapon (Oct 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As others stated, you should decide based on focal length only. Personally, I picked the TS-E 24L II as my preferred focal length, after spending some time shooting my intended TS-E subjects with at both 17mm and 24mm (testing was actually done with the 7D + 10-22mm; I bought the 16-35L II and sold the 10-22mm about a month after getting the TS-E 24L II).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+ 100 for me too, Sir.
This TS-E 24 L MK II with me / on my one camera all the times( For Super Sharp, High Contrast in Colors and For the Special Effected of Selected DOF), Another camera = 70-200 mm L IS, and the Last Camera = 85 mm 1.2 L MK II---( Yes, I not use my Trusty 24 -70 mm. 2.8 L MK I any more, just in my dry Box, after I get TS-E 24 L MK II 5 months ago).
Surapon


----------



## Eldar (Oct 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Better? If you're referring to the original TS-E 24L, maybe - but the TS-E 24L II is sharper than the bare TS-E 17mm, and decidedly sharper than the 17 + 1.4x (very obvious in the TDP crop comparison).


In a head to head ISO chart comparison, the TS-E 24mm f3.5L II is the sharper lens. It beats almost anything you can compare it to. And it combines incredible sharpness with all the other qualities that one could wish for. 

But the 17mm is also an incredible lens and with our current sensors, I believe the differences between the two are a bit academic. I am a bit worried though, walking around with the unprotected bulging front lens. The image below is a shot, unedited raw to jpeg in LR, except for size reduction to fit the 4M size limit, with the 17mm on 5DIII (1/50s, f5.0 and ISO100).


----------



## surapon (Oct 22, 2013)

Here is the good Link for TS Lens

http://www.oopoomoo.com/2012/03/seven-advantages-of-using-tilt-shift-lenses/

Enjoy.
Surapon


----------



## dryanparker (Oct 22, 2013)

Well, neither of these are "walkaround" lenses. They're specialty tools...and manual focus. You can do some interesting things with them. I've seen wedding shooters use the tilt effect in cool ways, but the real beauty of these lenses is in slower tripod work.

Something to consider, and in my opinion a must have for a shift lens, is a geared tripod head. It really helps me to have the axial control to adjust the attitude of the camera with the shift movement to keep your lines straight.

My preference is the TS-E 24L II. It's just a miracle of engineering, and for me it yields a more natural perspective. If you need more width, you can quite easily stitch frames and get even more than a 17mm FOV.


----------



## surapon (Oct 22, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> Well, neither of these are "walkaround" lenses. They're specialty tools...and manual focus. You can do some interesting things with them. I've seen wedding shooters use the tilt effect in cool ways, but the real beauty of these lenses is in slower tripod work.
> 
> Something to consider, and in my opinion a must have for a shift lens, is a geared tripod head. It really helps me to have the axial control to adjust the attitude of the camera with the shift movement to keep your lines straight.
> 
> My preference is the TS-E 24L II. It's just a miracle of engineering, and for me it yields a more natural perspective. If you need more width, you can quite easily stitch frames and get even more than a 17mm FOV.



Yes, Sir, Dear Mr. dryanparker.
You are right " the real beauty of these lenses is in slower tripod work. " = 100% right.
Yes " They're specialty tools...and manual focus. "---Yes, I solve the problem of this Awesome Manual Focus---By set up the one center spot Focus at my Canon 5D MK II, and set up the Loud beep sound when I use my old hand turn the Focus ring---Yes, If it at the right Focus when , I turn the ring, The Canon will beep, And I will stop at that point, and move the camera to the best point of view, and shoot the photos.
Yes, It Slower than AF, But That the best way for my 64 years old eyes.
And for walk around condition in day light time, I just set my F. Stop at 8.0 and Set the Focus at Between 5 Feet and Infinity , or 3 Meters and Infinity= I will get all perfected sharpest pictures in every times , with out adjust the focus ring------Ha, Ha, Ha, But I must tape the Small piece of duct tape on the focus ring, to make sure that It not accidential move/ rotate , during I take the Shot.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## tron (Oct 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As others stated, you should decide based on focal length only. Personally, I picked the TS-E 24L II as my preferred focal length, after spending some time shooting my intended TS-E subjects with at both 17mm and 24mm (testing was actually done with the 7D + 10-22mm; I bought the 16-35L II and sold the 10-22mm about a month after getting the TS-E 24L II).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was talking mostly about functionality. You can crop a little but cannot always go backwards.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2013)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As others stated, you should decide based on focal length only. Personally, I picked the TS-E 24L II as my preferred focal length, after spending some time shooting my intended TS-E subjects with at both 17mm and 24mm (testing was actually done with the 7D + 10-22mm; I bought the 16-35L II and sold the 10-22mm about a month after getting the TS-E 24L II).
> ...



Sorry - your statement about image quality suggested otherwise…


----------



## infared (Oct 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That is my quote "as good or better"... I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE. I was in shock. In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens. I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses. The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on. It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article. 
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.


----------



## infared (Oct 22, 2013)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Better? If you're referring to the original TS-E 24L, maybe - but the TS-E 24L II is sharper than the bare TS-E 17mm, and decidedly sharper than the 17 + 1.4x (very obvious in the TDP crop comparison).
> ...


In the Digital Picture comparisons...yes if you are pixel peeping and both the 17mm II with 1.4x vs 24mm II TSE's there is a slight difference (according to this comparison)...but even here..if you stop both lenses down a stop or two...you can really see no difference....it is negligible.
For me ...working on a tripod...I can just stop the lens down...I never shoot with it wide open..never. (I guess maybe astro photographers would a lot, though). Someone else may have different needs...but putting on a converter and stopping down a stop or two and that save me $2500 while still giving incredible results and lightening the load in my bag....Can't beat it!
Conversely ...if you are going to mainly shoot with the 24mm...then I would say to buy that and be done with it...
but I reach for the 17mm first...so this really works for my needs... Again... in the real world, the results are so good that if you have a good shot..no one will ever notice the difference unless you are making a huge print and peeping very heavily. I dare say the results will blow away anything that my 16-35mm II would have set on 24mm.


----------



## tron (Oct 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I am sorry I answered to the wrong post!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2013)

infared said:


> I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE.



I suspect the review was comparing the TS-E 17mm to the original (MkI) version of the TS-E 24mm, which didn't have the stellar IQ for which the MkII version is known. 

But I'll reiterate what I stated initially in this thread - the only meaningful differentiator between the TS-E 17/4L and the TS-E 24/3.5L II is that one is 17mm and the other is 24mm. In practical use, the IQ differences are insignificant. Regarding using a 1.4x TC, the greater tilt capability of the 24 vs the 17+1.4x might be of significance in some applications. Also, tilt has a pretty deleterious effect on IQ - I wonder how the tilted 24 II compares to the tilted 17+1.4x.


----------



## infared (Oct 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE.
> ...



You may be correct...It might have been comparing the 17mm II combo TO THE OLD 24mm and I was unaware of it.
Again...I have to say...the results that I achieve with the 17mm TS-E + 1.4X are very, very good..especially if I stop down to f/8 or f/11. 
This stuff is complicated and tedious!!!


----------



## Eldar (Oct 23, 2013)

infared said:


> That is my quote "as good or better"... I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE. I was in shock. In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens. I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses. The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on. It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article.
> So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.


I'm happy for you for you enthusiasm over your 17mm setup, you have good reason to. But the review you refer to must be against the old 24mm TS-E. The version II is optically nearly perfect. Extremely sharp and sharper than the 17mm, CA, flare, distortion and vignetting is very well controlled and color and contrast are absolute top notch. And so is the 17mm. The pixle peepers will probably give the 24mm the highest grades, but to me, the quality differences between the two are academic. 

I had not tried the 17mm+1.4xIII combo before, but did yesterday. It works surprisingly well, but the results are not as good as those you get from the 24mm TS-E 3.5L II (the differences are more than academic here). I did not do a very thorough test of how much tilt & shift I got from one compared to the other, but it seemed the 24mm gave me more of both. I'm sure someone else in here has done the comparison.


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 23, 2013)

*It depends...*

The most relevant comment (IMHO) I've seen here is that it depends on what you need the lens for (I use 'need' in the less precise 'photographer' context, given it's an Xmas present ;-)

The 24mm offers somewhat superior image quality, but if you want extra wide, then it has to be 17mm

I use both regularly for my paying work (architecture, interiors, industrial), but looking at my archive, 17mm use outstrips 24mm by around 3:1. My 'minimum' bag on a job typically has 17mm TS, 24mm TS and 24-70 on a 1Ds3

Filters are not an issue for me, I just don't use them. Then again I regularly use both TS lenses hand held...

I've just finished writing about the Samyang 24mm TS lens, which is nowhere near as poor as some would suggest.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/samyang24ts.html

I should note that it's perhaps more written for those wanting to actually use the lens rather than pore over MTF charts and tables of measurements ;-)


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 23, 2013)

I had this dilemma 17 vs 24mm. I chose 24mm and haven't regretted it. I think it's a more flexible focal length.
I could see that if it were interiors that you want to use it for the 17mm might be more appropriate.
I mainly use it for landscape and 24mm is perfect for that. Stitching also works really well if you want a wider view. Filters were an important factor for me. The 17mm at the time wasn't so straightforward.
So thumbs up on the 24mm TSE II. I don't leave home without it ( I am just praying that I don't ever break the knobs.)

I was interested in someones statement earlier about using it wide open
(I guess maybe astro photographers would a lot, though).
I am using a 14mm Samyang for Wide field Astrophotography. 
I was wondering if the 24mm was commonly used for this.
I never thought of using it as maybe I thought it might be fiddly in the dark.


----------



## infared (Oct 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > That is my quote "as good or better"... I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE. I was in shock. In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens. I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses. The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on. It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article.
> ...


OK...this is getting interesting....I think that I stand corrected that The review I read MUST have been comparing the 17mm II+1.4X III combo to the OLD 24mmTSE
So Eldar, thanks for checking that out and giving a personal report (I would but have no 24mm!). Question...did you compare with the lenses stopped down to 6.3 or 8?
The reason I ask is because if you take a look at the DigitalPicture Lens Comparison Tool (only web comparison that I can find), the results look VERY close. (Like say in a 20" x24" print are we going to see a difference?)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Any pics you can post?
I also apologize for my "perhaps" over enthusiasm.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 23, 2013)

infared said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...


I just left on a business travel (currently sitting in an airport lounge), so it will be some time before I can post anything more than text. 

In the TDP ISO chart comparison I think it´s clear that sharpness and contrast has taken a fair hit on the 17mm/1.4xIII combo. But the interesting question is of course what you would say looking at an actual image. 

To compare with something else; Reuter published the statistics for the 100 best images of the year (2012). Which cameras, lenses, shutter speeds, ISO etc. was used. The most widely used lens was the 16-35mm f2.8L II. And it is beyond question that they have plenty of good images to choose from. If you compare the 17mm/1.4xIII combo to the 16-35 at 24mm f8, you´ll see that your combo is at least as good as the 16-35. So equipment wise you are positioned to produce image of the year quality with what you have.


----------



## infared (Oct 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



That was my point..hit the sharpness and contrast a little with PS and who will know the difference. When I soot something with that rig it is always on a tripod and always stopped down..and when I see the real world results there is just no complaint from me! Thanks for the feedback...I am going to check out that comparison to the 16-35 II zoom on TDP!


----------

