24mm TS-E or 16-35/17-40L?

[Peter Mendelson]

I have been gaining a greater appreciation for tilt-shift lenses recently (I have the 90mm TS-E), and am thinking about getting the 45mm TS-E for stitched landscapes and other shots, and perhaps the 24mm TS-E for stitched landscapes, architecture, etc. for a wider perspective. I currently have the 24-105L, and while it is a great lens, it is not its best at 24mm and it would be nice to be able to go wider (I will continue to use it as my walk-around lens though).

I am trying to decide whether, instead of the 24mm TS-E, I should go for one of the wider zooms like the 16-35L or 17-40L. This would allow me to get a significantly wider perspective when I don't or can't stich frames with the 24mm TS-E (my widest lens is my 24-105L on my 5D). Moreover, the 24mm TS-E is generally regarded as the least sharp TS-E, although I don't know how it compares to the 16-35 or 17-40 optically. While I would be missing the tilt-shift features of the TS-E lens, if I shoot at 17mm or so I won't need to stitch as often as I would with the 24mm TS-E.

If I decide on the zoom it will probably be the 17-40L since I will be stopping down anyway and it's a heck of a lot cheaper! I am thinking of selling my 70-200L IS to fund the 45mm TS-E plus 17-40L purchase, since I have switched to using my 100-400L for most telephoto shooting with my 5D.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Peter

 

[Tom Yi]

Hi Peter,
Have you checked out Photozone.de? They've tested all those lenses in question, including MTF figures from a DXO program.

You are right, the 24 TS-E falls into "very good" class of sharpness, even stopped down. The 16-35 mainly falls into the "excellent" category, especially if stopped down. The same for 17-40, except the 16-35's corners are sharper when stopped down. This maybe a factor for you if you use the 5D, where the corners of the lens will be visible. Both have visible barrel distortion at their wide end as well.

Another option to consider is the Sigma 12-24. It really doesn't distort much at the 12mm end and stopped down provides "very good" sharpness.

Take a look at the reviews here.
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_24tse_35/index.htm
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1224_4556/index.htm

 

[Stan Jirman]

I have found the 16-35 to be weaker optically than the 17-40 on FF. I have tried two of each (good to have friends with Canon equipment!) and eventually sold my 16-35 and bought the 17-40. Less distortion, vignetting, and sharper.

The 24TSE isn't the world's sharpest lens by far, but it has very little other problems, such as CA, distortion, or vignetting. As such it's great for architecture, and personally I don't mind its relative softness. But you may find it to be insufficiently wide.

The Sigma 12-24 is a good lens if you can live with a big compromise and need that focal range. However, it's pretty low contrast and apparently has big sample variation. Mine was great, but I eventually sold it (with a profit!) because I decided that if I want _WIDE_ I use the 15mm fish for a better effect, and otherwise the 17-40 is wide enough for me.

Some 1Ds samples with the 12-24 (at full rez) can be found here:

http://dpr.jirman.com/12-24/

 

[Paul Caldwell]

I can't speak to either zoom, but it's most interesting to read other's opinions on it.

My 24mm TSE is sharp even on the 1ds MKII but it's CA is so bad in most situations, I just don't carry it that often.

The lens will also vignette with more than one filter on, even slims. Filter are of course dependent on what you shoot.

I have read alot of posting here on the thoughts of using TSE's for landscape stitches, one need to also remember that with any of the TSE's or any other 35mm shift lens, you are only going to get a max of 11m of shift and most times you can't use all of that especially the 24mm TSE. 11mm will only give you 1/3 of a frame of new material. IMO not enough to create a image as you are going to end up croping down to get to a 3:2 ratio print.

If you are stitching for a landscape image, i.e 3 stitches equal greater overall res. then definately consider the Zoerk solution. 20mm of shift and on average 18mm is useable. Or the Mamiya 50mm shift, 16mm of shift, and 100 percent useable.

PFC

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have found the 16-35 to be weaker optically than the 17-40 on FF.

Oddly I have exactly the opposite experience. I traded-in my 17-40 because I never used it on FF due to horrible bokeh and very poor edges and corners, even when stopped down. Focussing at f/4.0 also gave a huge range of 'correct' focus confirmation on Manual and frequently poor focus on AF.

I got the 16-35 f/2.8 and find myself actually using it. Sure the extreme corners at 16mm are poor, but the rest of the image is quite usable, for an Ultra-wide Zoom.

Maybe my 17-40 was very poor, I don't know.

Bart

 

[Stan Jirman]

Good for you! Personally, I compared two 16-35 against two 17-40 and one 17-35 and the 17-40 was the best optically, even though you are correct about the focus.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I can personally vouch for the excewllent contrast and resolution of the Sigma 12-24, at least the sample that Nicolas Claris has in Bordeaux. Pictures have been blown up to about 6'x8' and are superb. There is always sample variation.

I wonder whether one can test 6 samples in the stores on a test grid!

Asher

 

[Craig_Lamson]

My 12-24 is very nice as well. It is my most used lens by far. I'm guessing it has been used on 75% of all the images I have taken in the last two years.

 

[Peter Mendelson]

Original poster here. I bought a used 24mm TS-E, but haven't had the chance to use it yet (hopefully this weekend). I will post my experiences.

Regards,

Peter

 

[nicolas claris]

I can personally vouch for the excewllent contrast and resolution of the Sigma 12-24, at least the sample that Nicolas Claris has in Bordeaux. Pictures have been blown up to about 6'x8' and are superb. There is always sample variation.

I wonder whether one can test 6 samples in the stores on a test grid!

Asher

Thnks Asher for the kind comments...
I would add that I always use ƒ8 as a minimum and try to keep at ƒ11, larger aperture would bring vignetting and more softness in corners. When the foreground is not too close this lense becomes a jewel...

I bought this lense while I still had the 17-40 (sold now!) and made some comparison shots on tripod, at 17 mm, at all apertures the 12-24 was far better that my copy of 17-40...

Hope it helps