Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II - test images

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi folks,

I've been testing my new TS-E Series II lens, and I'm starting to get a grip on its specifics. I'll share a couple of images, but I've not spent any time on color or tonal adjustments. You'll basically see a straight Raw conversion, without CA correction or special sharpening (other than a uniform sharpening to recover from diffraction at f/11). There are some mazing artifacts and moiré, which basically are easy to prevent with a little attention and a good Raw converter. The fact that there is aliasing/moiré visible is a sign that there is more resolution than the sensor can resolve, despite diffraction blur !

Okay, without further delay, here is a regular non shifted image:


When you click on the image, you'll get the full size (9+MB !!) version, so it may take a while if you have a slow connection, you have been warned.

Again, the colors/tonemapping are far from what I'd like and the light was horrible and it was hot and a bit hazy (UV-index warning), so use the image to inspect for sharpness and CA when only using a bit of tilt to increase DOF (typical landscape scenario).

I'll post a few other examples later.

Bart

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And here's another example. This time I tested the result of an orthographic stitch with 2 images shifted in opposite directions relative to the camera shift, and then simply overlayed them at the overlap in Photoshop. That will tell how much of the +/- 12mm shift will still have a usable image quality. To help in determining the image edges with the various shift amounts, I've marked them in the image.

Here's the result:


When you click on the image, you'll get the full size (9+MB !!) version, so again it may take a while if you have a slow connection, you have been warned.

Do note that no special processing was done for the corner regions, other than the general sharpening of the entire image. That general sharpening could be replaced by something that does more justice to the specific aberrations towards the edge of the image circle. Also, the light fall-off can be compensated in post-processing, but there will still be more noise towards the corners due to relatively lower exposure levels, so that should also be fixed in PP.

To me, as far as we would accept this low level of post-processing, the image tends to drop off rapidly beyond 8mm shift in the landscape direction. That would suggest that a vertical shift in landscape image orientation (e.g. in architecture) would allow a full 12mm shift with only the extreme corners being compromised. I have an example of such a shift which I'll post later.

Also in this image pair, despite the diffraction blur from the f/11 aperture, there are Raw conversion artifacts (moiré and false color artifacts) due to excess of resolution. Tweaking the Raw converter, or a double conversion with the appropriate settings, should reduce the visibility significantly.

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

Hi Bart

thanks for sharing your tests, adding the shift scale and already a first question:

where did you have the focus - on the flatstitch - the 2nd image?
The curvature of field (hopefully the correct word in english) is interesting:

at the center it looks like the focus was on the center windmill, while at right border (especially) the focus seems much closer, meanwhile at the left....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that its reason is the tilt of 1 degree, only, but the curvature of field, unless you moved focus accidently by shifting.

The unshiftet image looks nice, as does every shift lens, using the sweet spot - the inner circle only.

While CA is surprisingly well controlled - even at the big, 12mm shifts of the flatstitch - I was hoping for a larger °sweet range° at each side.

Could you provide a °brickwall°-image, please?

 

[Asher Kelman]

"When you click on the image, you'll get the full size (9+MB !!) version, so again it may take a while if you have a slow connection, you have been warned."​

Let me put aside the architectural necessities of the lens for a moment. The picture itself is so beautiful with the vignetting at the edges being exactly what I'd work for. I cannot stand uniform illumination. Artifacts really don't matter much in this picture.

If I can get this in two shots of a landscape with the center well drawn, I'm happy.

Now would this also work for a picture of an entire orchestra?

That really needs the pixels this would offer.

For architecture, having a little robot like the Gigapan cannot give the tilt's this provides. Certainly this is more convenient than putting a digital back or camera on a LF setup.

This study is going to be very helpful. I'm looking forward to more of this but right now, it appears to be a very simple way of getting a superwide detail rich landscape.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the scene!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart

thanks for sharing your tests, adding the shift scale and already a first question:

where did you have the focus - on the flatstitch - the 2nd image?
The curvature of field (hopefully the correct word in english) is interesting:

at the center it looks like the focus was on the center windmill, while at right border (especially) the focus seems much closer, meanwhile at the left....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that its reason is the tilt of 1 degree, only, but the curvature of field, unless you moved focus accidently by shifting.

Hi Michael,

Yes, it is a combination of curvature of field and other sherical aberrations, together with the tilt. The curvature of field is the reason why a flat brick wall doesn't tell the whole story. That's why I also wanted to test things on subjects with predictable 'depth', and see if the curvature could be put to good use. I focused the near end of the focus plane on the waterlilies (but in Live View the distortion was already clearly visible), and at the far end I focused at the windmil in the center.

Nothing was changed between shots, other than the shift and the camera position in the opposite direction on a horizontal bar.

The unshiftet image looks nice, as does every shift lens.

Yes, it's the best unshifted 24mm result I've ever seen. There's a recent comparison with 2 other lenses at FM forums. The Nikon 14-24 G lens does pretty well, even though its not at its best at the 24mm end, but even better at the 14mm end.

While CA is surprisingly well controlled - even at the big, 12mm shifts of the flatstitch - I was hoping for a bigger °nice range° at each side.

Yes I was hoping that also, but that's why I wanted to share these test images. This lens is not perfect as some would like to make you believe, but it's much better than any 24mm lens I've seen before, and it has tilt (which allows to use it at wider apertures and still get lots of depth of field), and still a decent amount of shift if you're willing to do some postpocessing.

Could you provide a °brickwall°-image, please?

Yes, I have an example that's interesting, so I'll post it later. I have also more details about how diffraction affects center and shifted corner performance. Interesting fact; the lens has its highest center resolution at f/4.0, while the far corner performance keeps improving (but to a lower peak level) until f/11, maybe f/13. It may be useful for some subjects to shoot 2 images at different apertures and blend them.

Bart

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Now would this also work for a picture of an entire orchestra?

Hi Asher,

It would work for large groups, with the same limitations for edge sharpness. Besides, with the full L/R shift the image simulates a 60x24mm sensor, which equates to a 103 degree horizontal angle of view. That's a bit too much, also for people (unless you put the skinny ones at the edges ;-)). As can be seen from the waterlilies, geometrical distortion becomes promeninent towards 100 degrees coverage.

Having said that, there are solutions for that with appropriate software. DxO apparently can compensate, but also some pano stitching software like PTAssembler. And talking about stitching software, when this lens is simply rotated around the entry pupil, you'll get super (center of lens) resolution faster than shifting camera and lens in opposite directions. Also nice is that when using center of lens resolution, the lens can be used at a wider aperture, and the lens is very sharp between f/4.0 and f/8.0 (before diffraction starts to have its effect on resolution).

For architecture, having a little robot like the Gigapan cannot give the tilt's this provides. Certainly this is more convenient than putting a digital back or camera on a LF setup.

A T/S offers a very flexible way of shooting, with lots of control. I got the lens because I needed something good in the 24mm range, with the added flexibility of tilt and shift. The tilt is something that currently cannot be done easily (if at all) in postprocessing without resorting to focus-stacking and lots of post-processing. When time is money, tilt is king.

This study is going to be very helpful. I'm looking forward to more of this but right now, it appears to be a very simple way of getting a superwide detail rich landscape.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the scene!

It's a journey which I am glad to share. The scene BTW is from a UNESCO World Heritage site in the Netherlands, called "Kinderdijk". It's a collection of 19 windmills in close proximity, 16 of which were built in 1738 and 1740 to pump out the water through the canals that were dug by hand in 1366 and 1369. I'll go back sometime when the light is better and the temperatures are below 35 degrees Celcius (95 F).

Bart

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

... If I can get this in two shots of a landscape with the center well drawn, I'm happy.

Now would this also work for a picture of an entire orchestra?

That really needs the pixels this would offer.

For architecture, having a little robot like the Gigapan cannot give the tilt's this provides. Certainly this is more convenient than putting a digital back or camera on a LF setup.

This study is going to be very helpful. I'm looking forward to more of this but right now, it appears to be a very simple way of getting a superwide detail rich landscape.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the scene!

Asher

Hi Asher,

You do not necessarily need this lens for the purposes you state IMO. Even the "lowly" 17-40L does a great job when it comes to landscapes. If Bart doesn't mind me doing so, I can show an example from the same locality (since I was there with him during this shoot ;-)). Or I can send it to you by PM, whatever.

@Bart: This is yet another fantastic thread, full of good info as we came to expect from you time after time. But we should not take it for granted. I, for one, appreciate a lot the valuable knowledge you share with us. Thx.

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher,

You do not necessarily need this lens for the purposes you state IMO. Even the "lowly" 17-40L does a great job when it comes to landscapes.

For sure! I can use a pinhole in a lenscap too! The 17-40 is no lowly lens and is a great choice. However, I'm interested in detail-rich landscapes not "landscapes", LOL! I need to use the same lens for stitching for architecture indoors and outdoors.

I am impressed that the center of this lens is very sharp and according to the FM review, is outstanding compared to the 16-35, although the 17-40 wasn't mentioned. If you have a link to a 17-40 comparison, that would be helpful for my quest.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And here's another type of subject, same approach to test for the usable shift boundaries of the extrteme horizontal shift in landscape orientation:



When you click on the image, you'll get the full size (11+MB !!) version, so again it may take a while if you have a slow connection, you have been warned.

In this image the CA is a bit easier to spot, but still easy enough to correct in post-processing. It also demonstrates the benefit of the tilt capability. However, this lens also has a beautiful bokeh, amongst others due to the almost round aperture. It is therefore also possible to use the tilt in an opposite direction to force a very shallow depth of field.

Bart

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Tilt Shift

Right now the Tilt Shift lenses are very trendy for portrait work along the lines of using the tilt/shift for an upmarket lensbaby. I was able to use one at a workshop put on by Canon a couple weeks ago and they really do have a learning curve.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

For sure! I can use a pinhole in a lenscap too! The 17-40 is no lowly lens and is a great choice. However, I'm interested in detail-rich landscapes not "landscapes", LOL! I need to use the same lens for stitching for architecture indoors and outdoors....

Asher sorry to say this but this comment of yours is totally off the mark imo. I use the 17-40 and i have very detailed and sharp landscapes to show for it, no need to wave them off as just landscapes. Almost all my recent pictured which you have enjoyed are taken with that lens. fwiw...

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Asher,

You do not necessarily need this lens for the purposes you state IMO. Even the "lowly" 17-40L does a great job when it comes to landscapes. If Bart doesn't mind me doing so, I can show an example from the same locality (since I was there with him during this shoot ;-)). Or I can send it to you by PM, whatever.

Hi Cem,

I have no problem with a comparable image taken with another lens, as long as it is informative with respect to the corner performance. That corner performance is probably what people are interested in when they read this thread.

@Bart: This is yet another fantastic thread, full of good info as we came to expect from you time after time. But we should not take it for granted. I, for one, appreciate a lot the valuable knowledge you share with us. Thx.

Thanks, you're welcome.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Cem,

No, I'm not dismissive of your remark on the 17-40. If you have some images that would be good to see what the corners look like at different apertures. I have already put this lens on my wish list. It's a very versatile design as a walk around lens and lightweight too. However, I'm interested in getting the most resolution in architectural scenes too.

Bart,

I'm impressed with both your work and the pictures in the FM review you referenced. There the 24mm TS II outshines the others tested in the corners and the center. That's important to me in knowing what will be overlapped in each stitch or what can be used alone. I can see that the lens is a fine optic. If it's a good as it seems at the center, it will already be an asset. I could either use it as a TS for architecture with no stitching or on my Gigapan just using the center. My impression, so far is that it appears much sharper than the competing lenses except, perhaps, for the 17-40 which is not shown.

I'm enjoying your test pictures!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Right now the Tilt Shift lenses are very trendy for portrait work along the lines of using the tilt/shift for an upmarket lensbaby. I was able to use one at a workshop put on by Canon a couple weeks ago and they really do have a learning curve.

Hi Kathy,

Yes, the 45mm and 90mm versions can be used for portraits very well. The tilt allows to shoot e.g. couples that are positioned slightly behind each other in a double profile, yet with shallow DOF with eyes in focus. Or one can focus on both eyes of a single person even when the shot is not frontal, or focus on something held in the hands and have the eyes in focus as well.

The learning curve has often to do with lack of experience with a (LF) view camera, but its not that hard to get mastered. It just takes a bit of additional setup time for a given pose, so it's not usable for all types of shooting.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Bart and Cem,

I looked up my last orchestra shoot. I used the 24mm 1.4 L and it gave me my image without stitching. (I also tried swinging the 70-200 through the front entrance pupil and collecting sub-sections of the orchestra for later stitching). The challenge is that the Concert Hall administration really doesn't like these pictures being taken, and there's only a 20 second slot at the time of applause. That seems a lot, but it's not and one has someone in front standing to cheer the orchestra or hands moving in front of the lens as people clap.

Having the best lens is critical and a high ISO sensitivity and lots of pixels. I'll post an image showing my limited success. I feel that the 24mm T/S might well be a considerable improvement.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart and Cem,

I looked up my last orchestra shoot. I used the 24mm 1.4 L and it gave me my image without stitching.

So the angle of view is acceptable without shift. In that case this would give a sense of performance comparison at f/4.0 on a 24x36mm sensor. Also when compared to the new 24mm f/1.4 II version, at wider apertures, the TS-E II shines. The low level of CA and other spherical aberrations in the corners is exceptional for this focal length.

(I also tried swinging the 70-200 through the front entrance pupil and collecting sub-sections of the orchestra for later stitching). The challenge is that the Concert Hall administration really doesn't like these pictures being taken, and there's only a 20 second slot at the time of applause. That seems a lot, but it's not and one has someone in front standing to cheer the orchestra or hands moving in front of the lens as people clap.

Yes, time constraints are exactly why I needed a high quality wider angle lens as an alternative to stitching, which would otherwise give superior resolution (and multiple overlapping shots allow to optimize the pose of individuals in a group).

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

Hi Bart

>There's a recent comparison with 2 other lenses at FM<
well, I find this comparison quite fuzzy:
comparing the sweet spot of a MF-lens (the TS) versa the end of range of zoom lenses build for completly different purposes is quite tendentious.

The real contenders are the Oly OM Shift 24 and the Nikon shift 24, but they don't have the tilt, which you like.

I have a good copy of a Schneider PC-28 (shift only and same as the Leica-shift) but don't use it very much, anymore: its very good unshiftet and good untill 8 mm, but clearly more prone to CA. I used to flatstitch with it - and the Zuiko 35 mm shift as well - but gave up for real stitching.

Thanks for the town example; I think we have a confirmation of what we said from the first two shots. It might be helpfull to see other light situations, as side and - backlit....

>Yes, time constraints are exactly why I needed a high quality wider angle lens as an alternative to stitching, which would otherwise give superior resolution (and multiple overlapping shots allow to optimize the pose of individuals in a group).<

Good to know your intented purpose of your new baby! IMO that's crucial for judging that lens. It might work for some, while others will choose other lenses.

How about microcontrast - in the 3/4 tones? Very important for archi - when you can't add a reflector.

>Interesting fact; the lens has its highest center resolution at f/4.0, while the far corner performance keeps improving (but to a lower peak level) until f/11, maybe f/13. It may be useful for some subjects to shoot 2 images at different apertures and blend them.<

hmmmm


Kathy: you might find some infos here

Asher and Cem:
Not the 16-35-II nor the 17-40 can comptete vs the TS-24-II unshiftet, unless you got the best copy out of 5 years of production. The TS-24-II might have some better contrast than the other two lenses (the copies I tested). If Bart could provide a RAW, we could verify that.

Asher, I'm not sure that a 3.5-lens (the TS) nor a f-4 (17-40) fits your needs of lowlight situation. They need booth to be stopped down to get a average edge-sharpness, so you'll end up in long exposures. I still have a 17-40 and use it for interior shots of dusty workings site only (not changing the lens) - its range is perfect for that type of photography, but the 14 - 24 plays in a other league.

 

[Asher Kelman]

So the angle of view is acceptable without shift. In that case this would give a sense of performance comparison at f/4.0 on a 24x36mm sensor. Also when compared to the new 24mm f/1.4 II version, at wider apertures, the TS-E II shines. The low level of CA and other spherical aberrations in the corners is exceptional for this focal length.

This, Bart, is a superb reference. Thanks! It shows remarkably that the optimal contrast/focus of the lines appears at f4.0. Pictures in the concert hall at 1/100 sec 1600 ISO f 2.0 are a little over exposed. So I think we could go the f4.0 without a problem. I have found stretching of a double base at the edge of the orchestra. Such geometric distortion at the limits of the lateral extent could be readily corrected (and might ? increase the resolution just there).

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

...Asher and Cem:
Not the 16-35-II nor the 17-40 can comptete vs the TS-24-II unshiftet, unless you got the best copy out of 5 years of production. The TS-24-II might have some better contrast than the other two lenses (the copies I tested). If Bart could provide a RAW, we could verify that.
..

I am not saying that 17-40 can compete with the TS-24, not at all. I just said that for Asher's then stated goals (i.e. sharp landscapes) the 17-40 could also deliver good enough results coupled to a 5DII which he has. I have that combo and even without stitching I am getting excellent results. Of course, it would be even better with a TS 24 but my landscape work does not need that extra precision.

 

[Michael Fontana]

I am not saying that 17-40 can compete with the TS-24, not at all. I just said that for Asher's then stated goals (i.e. sharp landscapes) the 17-40 could also deliver good enough results coupled to a 5DII which he has. I have that combo and even without stitching I am getting excellent results. Of course, it would be even better with a TS 24 but my landscape work does not need that extra precision.

I agree, Cem, the situations can be different.
You don't have clients who initially want prints in A-3, and once the work is done think about making posters out of it. Then you will see any shortcoming of a lens.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I am not saying that 17-40 can compete with the TS-24, not at all. I just said that for Asher's then stated goals (i.e. sharp landscapes) the 17-40 could also deliver good enough results coupled to a 5DII which he has. I

Hi Cem,

I think you missed my description of needs above in Post # 4 I have added bullets and underlining for added clarity:

• two shots of a landscape with the center well drawn.......
  
  
• an entire orchestra? That really needs the pixels this would offer.
  
  
• For architecture.......
  

All my needs are for detail-rich imaging whether I use it for a packed group of people or a stitched building or a detail-rich landscape.

My requirements might have been lost in the many posts above and so easily missed.

For the orchestra, I know the 24 1.4 covers the stage completely. What I want is better contrast and detail.

Asher

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Thank you, Michael

Appreciate the link.

 

[Michael Fontana]

You're welcome, Kathy.

Did someone saw the difference to TSE-24 version I?

Apart from CA it looks like distortion is lower in the newer one as well.

There's even a comparison with the 17 - 40 ^^

 

[Asher Kelman]

You're welcome, Kathy.

Did someone saw the difference to TSE-24 version I?

Apart from CA it looks like distortion is lower in the newer one as well.

There's even a comparison with the 17 - 40 ^^

I was marveling about the 17-40 but now I feel that the 24mm TS is a far better optic unless one needs wider apertures.

With the new 17mm TS being available, I'm preparing to be really wowed! It has to be as well made as the new 24 TS!

Even the the 17-40 remains practical as does the 14-24 for AF work.

Asher

 

[Michael Fontana]

Asher

the first TSE 17 are out already and the first RAWs are spread out

4.5 mm of shift on a 1 Ds-3.

A 17 mm-shift isn't a everyday lens; you won't work with it that much, as its use is a bit limited. I personally try to avoid these UWA-looks as much as I can, as it effects detracts quite a bit from the things on the photo. Some photographers master UWA quite good, other less.

The 24 mm TSE makes more sense pov daily use..

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A 17 mm-shift isn't a everyday lens; you won't work with it that much, as its use is a bit limited. I personally try to avoid these UWA-looks as much as I can, as it effects detracts quite a bit from the things on the photo. Some photographers master UWA quite good, other less.

The 24 mm TSE makes more sense pov daily use..

I fully agree with Michael. There is use for wider than what a 24mm has to offer in the sense of FOV, but it is either specialized use, or rapidly turns into a(n expensive) gimmick. Wider than the FOV of a 24mm will introduce geometrical distortons (elliptical circles, elongated features and stretched out people) towards the edges/corners, and very few buildings/interiors will look natural without further postprocessing.

But sometimes there is no way around such short focal lengths / UWAs. I think for that purpose the Nikon 14-24 G lens offers a very good solution, especially when one needs a single shot instead of a stitched image. It also offers the flexibility of a zoom, but it lacks the T/S functionality.

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

........
But sometimes there is no way around such short focal lengths / UWAs. I think for that purpose the Nikon 14-24 G lens offers a very good solution, especially when one needs a single shot instead of a stitched image. It also offers the flexibility of a zoom, but it lacks the T/S functionality. Bart

I completly agree, and yes, I have the N 14-24 exactly for that purpose - it works as intended and with a very good quality. For interiors, when you can't step back the zoom helps a lot, as sometimes just a tiny bit wider is required for a nice composition.

The UWA-effect can be minimized a bit - not in all the situations, though - but still it remains a UWA. The nice thing about the 14 - 24 is that you have very good quality in the modest UW-range (about 18 - 22 mm, which I use a lot) while still having the UWA 14 - 16 mm, if required once a month in one single lens.

The 17 mm shift lacks this versatility, while the 24 has it.

BTW: I wonder how Canon still justifies these price differences; 3556 $ in Switzerland vs 2200 $ in US at B & H.... that's 60% more with lower taxes... for the TSE 24.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And here is something completely different. This TS-E lens allows to focus pretty close, slightly less than 21 cm (approx. 8 inches) from the sensor plane (magnification 0.34x). When shooting close-up, or with the aperture wide open, the bokeh characteristics of the lens become important. Well, this lens produces magnificent bokeh. Even the front bokeh, which is the most difficult, is quite good. The rear bokeh is smooth without spurious detail.

Here's a shot at it's widest aperture f/3.5:

And a 100% zoom crop from the center (the edges lose a bit of resolution at f/3.5):

The newspaper wasn't flat, so the focal plain is not straight, in case you're wondering.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

Yep Bart,
it's a nice one, not to harsh.
How that it looks when closing a bit down?

The close focus point, at 21 cm could seduce to use that lens for micro-work, its shifting capability would be a bonus in architecture modell work - for °eye-level - views°
-------------
°eye-level - views°= well, getting close to it.

Do you mind doing a shot with a few small cardboard boxes, kinda playing architect?

DOF of a 24 mm isn't to bad: with a COC of 0.03 its from 17 to 27 cm at f =22.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yep Bart,
it's a nice one, not to harsh.
How that it looks when closing a bit down?

The close focus point, at 21 cm could seduce to use that lens for micro-work, its shifting capability would be a bonus in architecture modell work - for °eye-level - views°
-------------
°eye-level - views°= well, getting close to it.

Do you mind doing a shot with a few small cardboard boxes, kinda playing architect?

DOF of a 24 mm isn't to bad: with a COC of 0.03 its from 17 to 27 cm at f =22.

Hi Michael,

I knew you would make the connection to photography of scale models (maquettes). That's why I mentioned the close-up capabilities of this lens, and its pleasing bokeh.

Regular boxes are too easy, so I used small ones, matchboxes. Here are 3 versions, with apertures f/8, f/11 and f/16:

I used a vertical shift of -8 mm to maintain verticals, which caused the left bottom corner to show more geometric distortion. I also used -4.5 mm tilt (horizontal swing) to position the plane of focus through the centers of the matchbox fronts. The shooting distance was from 24 cm for the left most box, to 33 cm for the right most one, measured from the sensor plane. Subtract 15cm for the lens to subject distance. The distance of the paper file in the background was 10 cm behind the matchboxes.

Personally I wouldn't use f/16 if image quality (material structure) was very important in large output. Diffraction takes too much microdetail contrast away. But if DOF is important, and it cannot be achieved by using a different tilt angle, then it's possible to use it. The bokeh remains very pleasing, and is without CA discoloration.

Here's an example of the minimal loss at f/16 versus f/11 (however, a very good sharpening method was used and the subject isn't that critical due to the flat lighting):

The same sharpening amount was used for both images to see the differences in micro detail. The crop at 100% zoom is of the top edge of the matchbox at the righthand side.

Not bad for a wide angle lens, isn't it?

Cheers,
Bart