# TS-E 17mm or 24mm



## romanr74 (Apr 22, 2013)

I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 22, 2013)

I don't understand the draw of a tilt shift. I like the results, but not enough to throw down a thousand bucks. I'm replying because I'm hoping to get some in sight on the why.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 22, 2013)

romanr74 said:


> I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...



If you get the 17mm, you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm. It won't be as sharp, but you still get the advantages of the movements.


----------



## pierceography (Apr 22, 2013)

I'm planning on getting a TS lens in the next month or two, and will likely go for the 24mm over the 17. My reasoning is that on a FF camera, I find the 24mm focal length to be more usable. While 17mm is pretty wide, it's almost too wide for my tastes.

But it really depends on what you're shooting. If you're outdoors and have the ability to zoom with your feet (walk), then I would think 24mm would be more usable. However, if you're doing mostly interior work where space is tight, 17mm would be more ideal.

But as with most things photography, it's entirely based on what (how) you shoot.


----------



## MarkII (Apr 22, 2013)

Well, you should choose based on what focal length you want to use...

Generally, the TS-E 17mm is not a good walk around lens. The bulbous front means that you need to keep the lens cap attached any time you are not actively taking a picture. Shooting anywhere where where there are dense moving crowds may also be a bit harrowing. Fitting filters is a pain (ie not officially supported). OTOH - its a 17mm tilt-shift lens.

The 24mm is much more practical from a mechanical perspective and takes ordinary filters. One thing I find with the 17mm is that the tilt adjustment is not terribly useful - everything is usually in focus unless the subject is practically on the lens. With the 24mm you get more DOF control if that's what you are looking for.

If you are prepared to take your time (and possibly a tripod - though for perspective correction alone and even shift-panoramas you can shoot pretty well hand held), either lens is a good choice. Either lens is significantly better than the 16-35mm for sharpness and the tilt-shift function - provided the focal length is right.


----------



## RGF (Apr 22, 2013)

I had both and glad I sold the 17. Too wide and there really is not much to gain the tilting it for DOF. 17 is so wide that nearly everything is in focus. With the shift, I can control most of this in PS and new LR ACR. As far as pans go, seldom shoot pans with 17.


----------



## myocyte (Apr 22, 2013)

I was in a similar position, and I've rented both the 17 mm and 24 mm TS-E lenses. Although the 17mm gives some great perspective and is sharp corner-to-corner, I was not a huge fan of that bulbous element. Also, not being able to use screw-on filters was a major downside for me. The 24mm also worked quite well as a general walk around lens with my family, even if I had to rely on focus confirmation. So, I could take some landscape/architectural shots, and while walking around, still take family photos @ 24mm. The 17mm was purely for architecture/landscape with much less flexibility. For a family vacation, I would opt for the 24mm for its versatility.

I still have the 24mm TS-E on my to-buy list, but like a previous poster said, I'm also having trouble convincing myself that it's worth the $2k (granted the shift function was a great feature to have). Instead, I ended up dropping my photo budget on a HDSLR rig in hopes that I could be the next Tarantino with my family home videos (unfortunately, my videos will probably still be horrible).


----------



## RGF (Apr 22, 2013)

when I want to go really wide, I use my 14. Great lens.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 22, 2013)

myocyte said:


> I was in a similar position, and I've rented both the 17 mm and 24 mm TS-E lenses.



If you're not sure which to get, then this is the right answer: rent both.

I love the 24. Whenever I can think of an excuse to use it instead of some other lens, I do. And it takes the 1.4x TC just brilliantly, giving you an awesome 35(ish) lens as well.

I'm personally not drawn to the 17mm perspective anywhere near as much as I am to the 24mm perspective. And when I _do_ want something as staggeringly wide as the 17 would give, I'm generally not going to be satisfied with a mere 17mm lens and I'm instead reaching for the 8-15. But that's just me.

Oh, it, of course, depends a great deal which format you're shooting with. I shoot 135 ("full frame") exclusively. If I shot APS-C ("crop"), I'd be all over the 17 instead of the 24.

Also worth considering is the third-party alternatives. I don't really remember who's selling what, but I do know that somebody's got something new for a fair bit less that still has the independent movements of the Version II lenses. I also understand that the image quality from said lens is supposed to be quite respectable, even if it's not quite as good as the Canon. In other words, it's probably a much better priceerformance ratio still with very good performance.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 22, 2013)

I had both and took both last August to Tuscany - including the places you mention. The primary purpose of a TS lens is keeping your verticals straight. In architecture for most shots if your verticals are not straight, then others will not bother looking at your work. They're really a basic necessity type of thing. Some may argue that you can do this in PP, but that is not true - the perspective will be different.

IMHO it's not really a one or the other proposition. I found both necessary but if I had to take only one I would take the 24 because 17 is often too wide and it has more problems with flare.

I posted a thread here recently with examples from Tuscany with these lenses - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13128.0;topicseen


----------



## art_d (Apr 22, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I don't understand the draw of a tilt shift. I like the results, but not enough to throw down a thousand bucks. I'm replying because I'm hoping to get some in sight on the why.


A big draw is the ability to shift which lets you keep the camera level while composing shots, which keeps vertical lines running straight. This is useful anytime you have a vertical element in the composition (a building, a lampost, a tree, etc.) that you don't want to have appear like it's falling backward (which happens if you point the camera up) or forward (if you point the camera down). 

For example:






This photo was made with a 17mm TS-E at maximum shift. If this had been a regular lens and the camera was kept level, the horizon would've been in the middle of the frame. Most of the bottom of the frame would've been filled with foreground and a good portion of the building would've been cut off at top. If the camera had been tilted back to capture the entire height of the building, the building would suffer from keystoning, with the vertical lines not running straight. 

As to the question of 17 vs 24...that has a lot to do with shooting style. I find the 24 generally more practical in more circumstances because 17mm is kind of an exterme focal length. But if that's the kind of shooting you're into, it's a fantastic lens.


----------



## art_d (Apr 22, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...
> ...



This is true...although also be aware that a TC will add a slight bit of barrel distortion. May not be an issue in most circumstances, but it can become evident in some architectural shots.


----------



## romanr74 (Apr 22, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> I had both and took both last August to Tuscany - including the places you mention. The primary purpose of a TS lens is keeping your verticals straight. In architecture for most shots if your verticals are not straight, then others will not bother looking at your work. They're really a basic necessity type of thing. Some may argue that you can do this in PP, but that is not true - the perspective will be different.
> 
> IMHO it's not really a one or the other proposition. I found both necessary but if I had to take only one I would take the 24 because 17 is often too wide and it has more problems with flare.
> 
> I posted a thread here recently with examples from Tuscany with these lenses - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13128.0;topicseen



Very helpful pictures - thank you!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 22, 2013)

art_d said:


> For example:



This is the textbook example of what the TS-E 17 is designed for: close-up photos of tall buildings.

Of course, that's not all it can do, and it's not all it can do really, really, well. But it's basically its primary purpose.

If you're thinking of doing this sort of thing -- or of similar sorts of close-up shots of very big things (including mountains and trees) where you don't want any geometric distortion -- then this is the lens for you. If you have other types of photography in mind, this probably isn't the lens for you.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## romanr74 (Apr 22, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > For example:
> ...



I've checked my metadata and 50% of my pictures shot with the 16-35 are at the very wide end. I've added a few examples which I believe work nicely. I have not added examples which do not work because of falling lines. What I obviously try to do is frame at 16mm thus that the falling lines are as limited as possible. With the 16-35 this can lead to mediocre results due to corner unsharpness (see picture 8814 showing the limits of this 'technique'). Not all of these picutres are potential TS-E candidates, of course. Picture 3938 for example surely isnt... Again, all pictures at 16mm


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 22, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> For somebody who uses 16mm as often as you do get the 17TS-E. If you want a bit more flexibility with minimal loss in IQ then get a 1.4TC MkIII.



+1

You've done a superlative job working around the limitations of the 16-35, but there isn't a shot amongst those you posted that I personally wouldn't have gone with the TS-E 17 if I had a choice between the two. Now that I've seen what you're drawn to, it seems pretty clear that the 17 is for you, in spades.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## jonsjons (Apr 22, 2013)

So is selective focus a viable possibility with the tilt adjustment of either the 17 or 24mm? I always loved tilting the front standard on 4x5s....and hoped maybe I could do achieve something similar with these lenses (particularly the 17mm as I love ultrawides) but it sounds like depth of field may be so deep that this won't really be possible.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 22, 2013)

jonsjons said:


> So is selective focus a viable possibility with the tilt adjustment of either the 17 or 24mm? I always loved tilting the front standard on 4x5s....and hoped maybe I could do achieve something similar with these lenses (particularly the 17mm as I love ultrawides) but it sounds like depth of field may be so deep that this won't really be possible.



Reverse tilt is very effective with the 17mm TS-E.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 22, 2013)

romanr74 said:


> I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...



I like the 17mm focal length but then again, I'm a very big fan of filters and the 17mm TS-E can not fit any filters unless otherwise you do some DIY filter holder. If you like to use filters, then the 24mm TS-E II is the way to go.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 23, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I don't understand the draw of a tilt shift. I like the results, but not enough to throw down a thousand bucks. I'm replying because I'm hoping to get some in sight on the why.


*Slow*
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Lee Big Stopper ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 20s ı f/11 ı ISO 100



Slow by shutterwideshut on Flickr

*A Cloudy Day*
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Lee Big Stopper ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 60s ı f/16 ı ISO 100



A Cloudy Day by shutterwideshut on Flickr

By tilting, you can achieve a deep DOF from front to back and by shifting, you can overcome the keystone effect/converging verticals. These images were both done using both the tilt and shift method.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2013)

The real value of the TS-E's only comes out when you start to reproduce your images at decent sizes. The truth is if you are only going to post online and small printing then hyperfocal focusing and fixing keystone in post will normally work fine. If you start to demand better results and what to print 12"x18" and above then the TS-E's will make a big difference.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 23, 2013)

shutterwideshut said:


> By tilting, you can achieve a deep DOF from front to back and by shifting, you can overcome the keystone effect/converging verticals.



It's not just squared-off manmade structures that benefit from movements, of course, though that's where it's the most instantly obvious.

This attached shot was also made with both tilt and shift on the TS-E 24. The flowers were just a foot or two away from the camera. The Superstition Mountains in the background are a mile or so away...and yet the flowers, the cliffs from base to peak, and the meadow between are all in sharp focus.

This is very close to straight out of the camera, too. No cropping. It's a colorimetric rendition, or very close; I had to dial back the sky by about a stop to bring back some of the color, but that's it.

I haven't made a print of this yet, but I've got plans for at least a 24" x 36" print, or I might even go all the way to 36" x 54.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## romanr74 (Apr 23, 2013)

so i understand from reviews the in-focus indicator will be working with this lens. is this also true when shifted or do you better work with liveview? i am currently using a 5dIII.


----------



## MarkII (Apr 23, 2013)

scrappydog said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > so i understand from reviews the in-focus indicator will be working with this lens. is this also true when shifted or do you better work with liveview? i am currently using a 5dIII.
> ...



+1

The viewfinder focus points work for focus-confirm (i.e. they beep as you move the focus manually), but usually they are only reliable when the lens is not tilted or shifted.

Similarly, the camera exposure metering becomes unpredictable (well, probably not, but I've still not figured out how to predict it...), so live-view and/or exposure bracketing are often important.

FWIW, using a tilt-shift lens is a lot more time consuming than any conventional lens. As others have pointed out, you can correct perspective for conventional images, albeit with a loss of resolution.

If your subject is not moving and you don't mind a ton of time in photoshop etc you can pretty much eliminate the need for TS if, for example. you shoot a high-res panorama before applying software corrections (thereby offsetting the resolution loss), or using focus stacking to increase DOF. Unless you shoot a lot of images that would benefit from TS, these might be viable options. I have actually done this for some images shot at 200mm, though it is pain to process.


----------



## infared (Apr 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> For somebody who uses 16mm as often as you do get the 17TS-E. If you want a bit more flexibility with minimal loss in IQ then get a 1.4TC MkIII.



Questions:
You can use the 1.4TC MKIII on the 17mm TS-E?
What is the IQ like?


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 23, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> shutterwideshut said:
> 
> 
> > By tilting, you can achieve a deep DOF from front to back and by shifting, you can overcome the keystone effect/converging verticals.
> ...


Yes indeed. Here's another example wherein the foreground is less than two feet away. Another benefit of a TS-E lens is that, due to its larger image circle, the corners are also sharp. 

*The Dome*
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Lee 0.9 Soft ND Grad Filter ı 24mm ı 2.5s ı f/16 ı ISO 100


The Dome by shutterwideshut on Flickr



scrappydog said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > so i understand from reviews the in-focus indicator will be working with this lens. is this also true when shifted or do you better work with liveview? i am currently using a 5dIII.
> ...


+1. This is always the way to go to achieve a more precise focussing.


----------



## charlesa (Apr 23, 2013)

The 24 mm version II, sharper and wide enough for my needs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2013)

infared said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > For somebody who uses 16mm as often as you do get the 17TS-E. If you want a bit more flexibility with minimal loss in IQ then get a 1.4TC MkIII.
> ...


Answers:
Yes.
Very high.


I only post what I personally do. I have found the 17 and 1.4 MkIII to be very high quality, if you are concerned about any miniscule distortion introduced then you can make your own lens profile with the free Adobe software. I haven't found it enough of an issue to bother.

I even found the 17 TS-E and 2x TC MkII to be higher IQ than the 24mm TS-E MkI, and the newer combo has much better functionality.

If you need/want the fov the 17 is the only way to go, but it has great flexibility as a 24mm and a 34mm. If you want to use filters (easily) don't need/want the wider fov or have the time to stitch with the 24 then get the 24 MkII, it is slightly sharper, it does take filters, it doesn't have the crazy front element. 

I got mine principally for interiors (that is what paid for it) but it is such a good lens that I use it all over the place. With a little pre-visualisation you can even use shift and tilt handheld to good effect.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Apr 23, 2013)

I have both the 17mm f4L and 24mm f3.5L II TS-E lenses, although the 24mm has mostly been sitting in the camera bag since I got the 17mm (even thought the 24mm is the sharper of the two, by a tiny margin).

I like the 17mm TS-E lens because it's sharper and has less distortion than any other lens of comparable focal length (with the possible exception of the Zeiss 15mm f2.8, but it won't accept graduated filters). The tilt and shift features are just nice bonuses, and I use the lens shifted more often than not. I also like that I can use the same Lee and Singh-Ray filters on both TS-E lenses, and both lenses work surprisingly well with the Canon extenders.


----------



## infared (Apr 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


WOW!....I have a 1.4TC MKIII....for my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...
I say WOW because...I have been saving for the new Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 ZE...and then..I got to thinking I could buy a Canon 17mm TSE, save $700-$800, have the tilt and shift, comparable image quality (right?) and the 1.4x set up would just be a bonus. (I never thought a 'tele' converter would work well on a SWlens.
hmmmmm....I will have to think about this more....DAMN!!!! LOL!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2013)

infared said:


> WOW!....I have a 1.4TC MKIII....for my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...
> I say WOW because...I have been saving for the new Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 ZE...and then..I got to thinking I could buy a Canon 17mm TSE, save $700-$800, have the tilt and shift, *comparable image quality (right?) *and the 1.4x set up would just be a bonus. (I never thought a 'tele' converter would work well on a SWlens.
> hmmmmm....I will have to think about this more....DAMN!!!! LOL!



I have never used the Zeiss 15mm, but I regularly print 3 foot panoramas from a single shot from the 17mm TS-E and the IQ is as good as your technique. Of course the Canon lens does offer vastly more functionality than the Zeiss, not least of which is the shift stitching option which ends up giving you an 11mm lens fov on a 50mm x 24mm sensor, or the ability to use your 5D MkIII as a medium format equaling 44MP 36mm x 48mm sensor.


----------



## infared (Apr 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > WOW!....I have a 1.4TC MKIII....for my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...
> ...



Yes...I am aware of that...when I started to compare the Zeiss to the 17mm I came across the 11mm "bonus".
How well does that crazy front element hold up???


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2013)

I am not particularly careful with my gear, but I do put the lens cap on the 17 TS-E much more often than my other lenses. Having said that I often don't cover it, it has proven as robust as any other element, it has had several good cleans with my own mix of lens cleaner and all marks and blemishes have come off with no marks to the coatings. If I was going to use it as a true walk around lens I'd get a second lens cap and cut the top off to make a custom hood, this won't vignette if you don't shift, if you do shift you have the time to take the "hood" off.

The other really nice thing about lenses like this is despite the high purchase price the depreciation is very low. This means you can get one and use it for a few months and if you really don't like it sell it, this ends up costing surprisingly little money.


----------



## infared (Apr 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I am not particularly careful with my gear, but I do put the lens cap on the 17 TS-E much more often than my other lenses. Having said that I often don't cover it, it has proven as robust as any other element, it has had several good cleans with my own mix of lens cleaner and all marks and blemishes have come off with no marks to the coatings. If I was going to use it as a true walk around lens I'd get a second lens cap and cut the top off to make a custom hood, this won't vignette if you don't shift, if you do shift you have the time to take the "hood" off.
> 
> The other really nice thing about lenses like this is despite the high purchase price the depreciation is very low. This means you can get one and use it for a few months and if you really don't like it sell it, this ends up costing surprisingly little money.



PBD.. Thanks for all the inteligent input...I have time before I make my purchase and I an going to weigh all of this info before I make my decision....the TSE is an impressive and useful piece of glass!


----------



## romanr74 (Apr 24, 2013)

thanks everybody, this helped...


----------



## rumorzmonger (Apr 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> If I was going to use it as a true walk around lens I'd get a second lens cap and cut the top off to make a custom hood, this won't vignette if you don't shift, if you do shift you have the time to take the "hood" off.



Using the bottom of the lens cap converted to a Lee filter holder does cut down on flare when you just use it as a hood (as I do), although it doesn't really offer very much lens protection. You can shift about 7mm on the short axis and about 5mm on the long axis before you run into vignetting, and tilting doesn't cause any vignetting from the hood.


----------



## PixelReaper (Apr 24, 2013)

+1 for 17 TS-E + 1.4 TC

This is an amazingly versatile lens despite the wide field of view due to the almost complete lack of distortion.

As mentioned it is not quite as sharp as the 24 but from an owner of the 17 who is also a pixel peaper, I can tell you this lenses will satisfy most anyone's need for sharpness, especially in terms of corner performance.

I also love that I can get really close to my subject if desire / required. Great for indoor work and if you really want the 24mm just add the TC for only a marginal IQ penalty. But I can promise you will love the 17mm FOV!

Oh, and BTW, As you will see from the sample below you can definitly use ND / CPL / Grads on this lens. Fotodiox makes a great filter system I have been using for a few months now that allows for both Screw on filters, ie CPL / ND, and Grads. It's called the Wonderpana and it is built like a tank. Very high quality materials and it is made specifically for the 17 TS-E. I actually never take it off the lens, as it also protects the front element.


----------



## romanr74 (May 30, 2013)

A few samples with the TS-E 17mm...

2920: Tilted downwards to have the focal plane equal the floor thus that the latter is sharp foreground to Background.

3365: Most classical usecase (in my opinion), shifted upwards to preserve parallel lines.

3208: Less obvious usecase (in my opinion), shifted downwards to have more water and thus reflection in the picture while maintaining vertical lines. 

All pictures were taken with camera handheld. Shifting is not so much of a problem handheld, the electronic gauge helps altough you can also control the parallel lines quite well trough the viewfinder.


----------

