TS-E time

[aboudd]

I just bought the 17MM TS-E and the 24MM TS-E for my architectural shooting. I normally shoot Nikon's D600 and D4, but they do not offer equivalent lenses. So I decided for my architectural shooting to move over to the dark side.

I visited the National Cathedral for some interior shots. Getting used to the controls on the Canon is a little challenging, Nikon has more hard switches and fewer sub-menus, but I'll figure it out quickly, I've owned the 5D and 1Ds Mk III before.

First thing to mention is that Canon's knobs on the TS-E lenses are bigger and easier to access than Nikon's munchkin knobs. There is also a lock on the tilt position so I can't accidentally move it, screwing up an otherwise good shot. I did that several times with the 24MM PC-E. These two lenses also have the advantage of full rotation in any tilt movement, another BIG bonus.

There are two views of the pulpit, one shot with the 17, one with the 24, just to show the perspective differential. So far I like what I see, the color rendering is just fine, I'm seeing no barrel distortion in the 17, and resolution is holding well in almost full shift position.

 

[Uaiomex]

Congratulations on your new acquisitions. I own both too. I never had before, film or digital, in any format, lenses with so much wow factor like these two. I use them for arch and interiors. The 24 is my favorite for landscapes.
Eduardo

 

[GlenC]

I use the 17 ts-e mostly for interior shots. I've never used the tilt function but almost always use the shift-for horizontal and vertical shots. Occasionally, the overhead lights will cause one or more lens flares but they are (usually) easily fixed in ps.

 

[nikonf]

Great images gentlemen!.
I think it is time for me to purchase the Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm now.
Of course as soon I purchase the Canon optics, Nikon will probably announce their new versions! lol

I use the 17 ts-e mostly for interior shots. I've never used the tilt function but almost always use the shift-for horizontal and vertical shots. Occasionally, the overhead lights will cause one or more lens flares but they are (usually) easily fixed in ps.

 

[GlenC]

Great images gentlemen!.
I think it is time for me to purchase the Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm now.
Of course as soon I purchase the Canon optics, Nikon will probably announce their new versions! lol

Thank you- Rumor has it that Canon is coming out with updated versions of their ts-e 45mm and ts-e 90mm in 2013. Should be a good set to have.

 

[nikonf]

I really wish they would design a new 35mm TSE. This was a great focal length that Canon and Nikon discontinued. The Nikon did not have tilt.

Thank you- Rumor has it that Canon is coming out with updated versions of their ts-e 45mm and ts-e 90mm in 2013. Should be a good set to have.

 

[H. Mark Weidman]

I also own the Canon 24 TS-E and use it for both architecture and landscapes, always on a tripod. Of the seven L series Canon lenses I own, the 24mm is probably the sharpest. It brings back fond memories of shooting with a 4x5 view camera. As much as I would like to buy the 17mm TS-E, I cannot justify the cost for the limited amount of use it would get.

 

[MCTuomey]

I have the 24 II and the 90 and, like Mark, would like to also own the 17 but can't quite justify it. While the 90 hasn't been updated, I'm not sure the lens needs it, at least not in terms of sharpness. Axis rotation would be nice to have, like the 24 II, but I can work without it. The 45, which I had for a couple years, could use an update to deal with its CA and corner performance deficiencies.

 

[Uaiomex]

Rumors say Canon is coming next year with new 45 and 90 TS's and possibly an all new TS of different FL. I'd love the 90 to get macro capabilities.
Eduardo

 

[Professional]

Tilt/shift lenses are the only type i don't have in my collection, so i really thinking about getting it, but i don't know out of 4 model lenses from Canon, which one to get? I can't get them all or 2 at once, so which one to start with?

 

[pophoto]

The 24 II is a good one to start with, but it really depends what subject matter you are shooting, and hence the fundamental question of which focal length you need!

The 17 and 24 are both new-ish, and the 45 and 90 are due for an update! At the end of day you really need to ask yourself if you need it, either for architectural subject matter of creative use! I ended up selling my 24 II TSE because I didnt end up using it the way I intended creatively and always opted for my 24mm L II that could autofocus, and this was especially true when I was travelling, usually with family! Just something to consider despite the urge to splurge when you see great use of tilt-shift lenses!

 

[Professional]

The 24 II is a good one to start with, but it really depends what subject matter you are shooting, and hence the fundamental question of which focal length you need!

The 17 and 24 are both new-ish, and the 45 and 90 are due for an update! At the end of day you really need to ask yourself if you need it, either for architectural subject matter of creative use! I ended up selling my 24 II TSE because I didnt end up using it the way I intended creatively and always opted for my 24mm L II that could autofocus, and this was especially true when I was travelling, usually with family! Just something to consider despite the urge to splurge when you see great use of tilt-shift lenses!

Ok, i will see which FL i need most then choose the lens, it is really difficult as i shoot different applications which means i use different FLs, between 16 up to 50mm.

 

[Kirk Candlish]

The 17 and 24 are both new-ish, and the 45 and 90 are due for an update!

Have you shot with the 45 or the 90 ?

They're going to hard pressed to improve on them. They're both very sharp lenses with few faults. The original 24 was always a soft lens and the 17 took us into new territory. Updates could happen, but I wouldn't hesitate to use the 45 or 90, both are standards in the profession. Shoot the 90 side by side with anything you own that's comparable in focal length, say the updated 100 for example, and you'll see how good it is.

And updated lenses don't necessarily garner you anything you need. My original 85 1.2 L is doing just fine, the updated version was only marginally improved and in areas that don't matter to me.

Ok, i will see which FL i need most then choose the lens, it is really difficult as i shoot different applications which means i use different FLs, between 16 up to 50mm.

You can crop from the 17, and you can use a teleconverter on it to get 23.8mm, it's that sharp. And the 16-35 L zoom, version 1 or 2, is a great lens. So you have options. Whether you really need tilt-shift should be your first question.

 

[pophoto]

Hi Kirk,

No I haven't shot with the 45 or 90, but I heard they are superb optically, however, I hear they are still up for an update and agree with what you have said. It is either to put them in line with the rest of the lenses, either on an marketing point of view, and subtle updates to coatings used etc. Anybody's guess really! I was really stating their condition with respect to their suggested timeline.

I'll also add right now the 45 and 90 are at great price points, and as suggested by Kirk they are great lenses optically. If trends are anything to go by I cannot see their replacements being cheap. Seems like newer lenses are reaching $2k price points. Although the question remains if the update is to get ready for their new high MP release and if the current ones are good enough already and IF you need it!

 

[RVB]

TSE-17MM...

 

[pfigen]

I have all the Canon t/s lenses plus the Zeiss and Oly 35 shifts. I would not put the 45 anywhere in the same league as the rest. It's just not very sharp anywhere but the very center and has way too much color fringing. It was an okay lens for occasional film use, but just doesn't cut it in today's hi-res digital realm.

The 17mm t/s, which no one was expecting when it came out, has proven to be a real game changer for me, allowing images that would have been next to impossible to make prior to its release.

Here are two shots I've done in the last month for AMS Neve, the mixing console company from the UK. They wanted to show the console, but wanted it prominent, not small in the middle of the room like all their previous images. I shot these with the camera vertical, shifted left, right and center while sliding the body in a RRS clamp to compensate, keeping the lens effectively stationary, then, after blending exposures for each section, finally stitched the three together for final post production. The stitch makes it somewhere around 12-1/2 or 13 mm equivalent.

 

[malmac]

I have all the Canon t/s lenses plus the Zeiss and Oly 35 shifts. I would not put the 45 anywhere in the same league as the rest. It's just not very sharp anywhere but the very center and has way too much color fringing. It was an okay lens for occasional film use, but just doesn't cut it in today's hi-res digital realm.

The 17mm t/s, which no one was expecting when it came out, has proven to be a real game changer for me, allowing images that would have been next to impossible to make prior to its release.

Here are two shots I've done in the last month for AMS Neve, the mixing console company from the UK. They wanted to show the console, but wanted it prominent, not small in the middle of the room like all their previous images. I shot these with the camera vertical, shifted left, right and center while sliding the body in a RRS clamp to compensate, keeping the lens effectively stationary, then, after blending exposures for each section, finally stitched the three together for final post production. The stitch makes it somewhere around 12-1/2 or 13 mm equivalent.

Very impressive images. Inspirational. Thanks for sharing. Mal

 

[Kirk Candlish]

I shot these with the camera vertical, shifted left, right and center while sliding the body in a RRS clamp to compensate, keeping the lens effectively stationary, then, after blending exposures for each section, finally stitched the three together for final post production. The stitch makes it somewhere around 12-1/2 or 13 mm equivalent.

Would you mind clarifying this for a guy who has a 17 and used to have a 1972 Neve ?

So you used the RRS rail, slide the camera but didn't use the shift on the lens ? It's the 'effectively stationary' part where you lost me.

This Neve was made for the BBC as a TV production mixer in 1972. After having it shipped to the U.S. it took 3 weeks to reassemble and re-wire, but the classic British sound was worth it. And yes, that is a 24 track tape deck sitting behind the ProTools rack. Both were sold for 10% of what they cost after just a decade. And like film still looks better than digital, tape still sounds better than digital.

 

[nikonf]

Do my eyes deceive me?
Looks like you are using some lovely vacuum tube equipment!
I am still listening to AtmaSphere OTL Monoblocks with Coincidence Tube Preamp and Quad ESL 63 speakers.

Nice to know others can appreciate real sound!

All the best and keep the faith,
Mike

Would you mind clarifying this for a guy who has a 17 and used to have a 1972 Neve ?

So you used the RRS rail, slide the camera but didn't use the shift on the lens ? It's the 'effectively stationary' part where you lost me.

This Neve was made for the BBC as a TV production mixer in 1972. After having it shipped to the U.S. it took 3 weeks to reassemble and re-wire, but the classic British sound was worth it. And yes, that is a 24 track tape deck sitting behind the ProTools rack. Both were sold for 10% of what they cost after just a decade. And like film still looks better than digital, tape still sounds better than digital.

 

[pfigen]

"Would you mind clarifying this for a guy who has a 17 and used to have a 1972 Neve ?

So you used the RRS rail, slide the camera but didn't use the shift on the lens ? It's the 'effectively stationary' part where you lost me."

Since there's no way to effectively mount the Canon lens to the tripod and just slide the back (camera), you have to do a little dance with the RRS clamp to accomplish that. You do both - slide the camera AND shift - simultaneously. The RRS clamp already has marks scribed at 12mm left and right of the center, so you start with your camera centered and lens centered, then shift left and slide right, then shoot with everything centered, and finally shift right and slide left 12mm. The effect is that even with the shift, the lens stays in the same spot, eliminating any parallax that would have been caused by simply moving the lens. It's a convoluted way of doing a rear shift on a view or technical camera, and while a bit awkward, is quite effective. Until I (or someone else) comes up with a tripod clamp for the lens, this is going to have to be the solution.