Tilt-Shift: 17mm or 24mm??????

I am eager to get a Tilt-Shift lens for landscape and occasional architectural shots, but am torn between the 17mm and 24mm models. I will rarely photograph interior rooms; my interests are mostly landscapes and the occasional exterior view of a cathedral or interesting building.

From user recommendations on B&H, it seems the 24mm has better optical quality, and is less prone to damage to the front element than the 17mm. I am also comfortable with stitching panoramic shots, and so am leaning toward the 24mm lens.

What do you think?

I have both TSE 17 and 24 II and mainly use both for landscape and sometimes in tight space inside the building, I would not choose one based on the image quality, while I do agree the TSE 24 II is very slightly better than the TSE 17 especially when I use large degree of tilt and/or shift, but we are splitting hair here, I am confident to say most people will be just happy with either one.

So I will suggest just pick one based on the focal length you need and don't even think about the optical quality difference between the two, they are both top notch lenses, however, regarding the filter support that’s a valid concern, not about "protection" but when you need ND, GND for the landscape application, I don't normally use UV filter on any of my lens for the so called "protecting the lens" anyway, also the huge protruding front element of the TSE 17 makes it more prone to flare, I always have to pay special attention to that as I shoot outdoor under bright sun light a lot. so again is not because it's easier to get damage but for photographic reason it makes it more difficult to use, sometimes you just can't avoid the direct sunlight with such wide lens, so a lot more attention is required on the TSE 17 than the TSE 24 II.

Dan_168 said:

So I will suggest just pick one based on the focal length you need and don't even think > about the optical quality difference between the two, they are both top notch lenses,

Click to expand...

I totally agree with Dan (as usual!)

What body are you using for this TSE lens? Do you currently shoot frequently at 24mm, 17 or wider? For now forget the filter issue, choose based upon how your personal vision matches lens focal length. This compositional issue is most critical. In using TSE for landscapes one often composes with more emphasis on the foreground, so a slightly wider focal length might be needed, but this could be portrait instead of landscape orientation.
Mike K

i have both lenses, also, and both are just as nice and versatile! the tse 24mm, as mentioned, has the advantage of using ND and GND filters and like you have mentioned, the stitching of pano shots shouldn't be an issue if need it, of course. the IQ of both lenses are excellent. the problem is, once you have one, you want both sooner or later i do have canon 24mm 1.4L mk2, also, but they are for different situations and latter is auto focus. you have to get used to manual focus with tse lenses. also, if you are not familiar with tse lenses functions, it'll take a while to get to use their potentials as they were meant to the bottom line is, you can't go wrong with either one of these 2 tse lenses because you'll get the other one before you know it good luck with your decision.

cheerz.

My vote would be for the 24mm. I shoot architecture semi professionally, and find the 24mm much more useful than 17mm on my 17-40L. 17mm is often too difficult to get natural perspectives that don't look 'stretched'. Even for interiors, I rarely go much wider than 24mm. I do use the 17-20mm range but it's on RARE occassion. Actually I take a lot of interiors even at 28mm, 35mm and 50mm focal lengths.

Usually if I'm going wider than 24mm it's for a shot where I need to point the lens up and do perspective correction in software. T/S lenses are on the list to buy, funds just are not there

--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits

Obviously alot depends on how you shoot but my feeling is that 17mm might be more useful in terms of its specialist functions.

On the face of it 17mm needs the tilt function less than 24mm but my expereince is that the kind of shot your taking at 17mm means DOF is more likely to be an issue.

17mm seems like it would clearly benefit more from the shift function given that the distortion of paralell lines will be greater without it.

harrygilbert said:

I am eager to get a Tilt-Shift lens for landscape and occasional architectural shots, but am torn between the 17mm and 24mm models. I will rarely photograph interior rooms; my interests are mostly landscapes and the occasional exterior view of a cathedral or interesting building.

Click to expand...

need some ideas what a stitched view of the TS-E 17 can do? (virtual 10 mm lens always two frames ditched together)

(I could not live with the 24 mm lens and it is in the corners fully shifted inferior to the 17 mm half way to the corner - just for the record - I use both)



















just to put things into perspective - all images consist of at least two frames stitched together because I like this kind of view and it is is far wider then the 17 mm lens itself.

the 24 mm lens is IMHO rather boring and nothing special - that might be the reason why professional architecture photographers like it more.

I owne a 121 mm Schneider-Kreuznach for my 5x7 inch optical bench (which is roughly the same FOV like the TS-E 24 - I used it maybe twice or three times and preferred instead the shorter 72 mm Super Angulon instead - when Canon presented the TS-E 17 it was like a dream come true for me.

Just my 2 ct

--

isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top

ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'

“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

joger said:

the 24 mm lens is IMHO rather boring and nothing special - that might be the reason why professional architecture photographers like it more.

Click to expand...

It's more the client than the photographer. Architects are a VERY picky group when it comes to this sort of thing. After all, you're photographing the creator's work here While ultrawides can make for cool images, many architects don't prefer the "zoom-i-ness" (as one architect called a wide shot of mine once) that this wide focal length produces. Not saying all architects are that way, but your more established ones typically are.

It's because of that response that I've trained myself to go for the most natural perspective I can. As I've progressed in architectural photography I look back at my early work that was typically on the utra wide side, and realize the tighter crop was often the better shot. Many images lend themselves to extremely wide lenses, so I'm not dismissing them as a valuable tool, just one that should be carefully selected and not the "go to" lens. Too many people assume that 'architectural' photography only happens with the widest lens you can find.

--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits

I have both the 5D Classic, and the 1D4. I have (and use) 17-40 and 24-70 lenses. Been using the 24-70 more than the 17-40. Actually, I've been shooting a lot of panoramas using my 70-200 in portrait orientation.

Mike K said:

Dan_168 said:

So I will suggest just pick one based on the focal length you need and don't even think > about the optical quality difference between the two, they are both top notch lenses,

Click to expand...

I totally agree with Dan (as usual!)

What body are you using for this TSE lens? Do you currently shoot frequently at 24mm, 17 or wider? For now forget the filter issue, choose based upon how your personal vision matches lens focal length. This compositional issue is most critical. In using TSE for landscapes one often composes with more emphasis on the foreground, so a slightly wider focal length might be needed, but this could be portrait instead of landscape orientation.
Mike K

Click to expand...

Once you have one you'll want the other

I've stitched 17mm images often enough to know that I really, really like the option to cover a large angle of view, but the 24 has its place for my landscapes too.

Buy whichever you think you'll use most now, and resign yourself to wanting the other before too long.

Kevin

Thanks, all. I guess it's the 24 first, followed by the 17. Glad my wife doesn't really need all that jewelry she used to wear.....

I have both. I use the 17mm much more often than the 24mm but I would still be happy if I own just 24mm.

I owned the original TSE-24 and for my style of landscape, I didn't find the t/s as useful as I was hoping for. The shift was nice but with 24mm, at a normal height on a tripod, I can work the rule of thirds most of the time while keeping the lens level and not need shift too often. At normal tripod heights, f11 pretty much gets me all of the DoF I need or want out of a 24mm so I don't mess with tilt too much.

With the 17mm leveled at normal tripod height, you get either a bunch of sky or a bunch of unnecessary foreground. The shift up or down helps to solve this and is awesome and fun to have. With a 17mm FL, the DoF is so deep, you don't have to stop down as much. Also, if your camera has a bunch of MPs, cropping to a narrower FOV still leaves you with plenty of resolution. And finally, I have used the TSE 17mm as a walkaround handheld lens with good success.

The previous experience with the TSE 24 convinced me to pick up the 24L II first, then the TSE 17mm and then if Canon doesn't introduce any new "must have" lenses in the next year or so, I might pick up the TSE 24. In the meantime, I have to build out my Nikon rig.

harrygilbert said:

I am eager to get a Tilt-Shift lens for landscape and occasional architectural shots, but am torn between the 17mm and 24mm models. I will rarely photograph interior rooms; my interests are mostly landscapes and the occasional exterior view of a cathedral or interesting building.

From user recommendations on B&H, it seems the 24mm has better optical quality, and is less prone to damage to the front element than the 17mm. I am also comfortable with stitching panoramic shots, and so am leaning toward the 24mm lens.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

You are right
I love my 17 but am waiting until I can afford to add the 24.

rgds Steven
--
Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/stelin29
Equipment List on Profile

Are there any? Canons page says 17/4 has 77mm filter thread. My Lee systems outer 2nd slot (which does not vignette badly yet at 17mm) is about 15mm from the outer surface of a (straight) lense. I guess 17/4 bulges more than 15mm??

upnorthfar said:

Are there any? Canons page says 17/4 has 77mm filter thread.

Click to expand...

Which Canon page? the 17/4 TS has a bulging front element, the EU canon sites don't list any filter size, it's not supported.

upnorthfar said:

My Lee systems outer 2nd slot (which does not vignette badly yet at 17mm) is about 15mm from the outer surface of a (straight) lense. I guess 17/4 bulges more than 15mm??

Click to expand...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

I strongly recommend the 17TSE (for the reason given above) that you supplement with an Extender 1,4X to get the 24mm focal length.

24mm is not so wide in itself so a lot of time, I prefer the much wider angle of view of the 17mm.

but when required, I have no problem adding the extender as I do not see real IQ issues with the combination.

I think that I read already a test comparing the 17mm TSE + Extender versus the 24mm but could not find it anymore. My recollection was that it was not dramatic at all and this is really working ok.
--
JBL

"filter diameter 77mm":

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Tilt_and_Shift/TS-E_17mm_f4L/index.aspx?specs=1

photonius said:

upnorthfar said:

Are there any? Canons page says 17/4 has 77mm filter thread.

Click to expand...

Which Canon page? the 17/4 TS has a bulging front element, the EU canon sites don't list any filter size, it's not supported.

photonius said:

My Lee systems outer 2nd slot (which does not vignette badly yet at 17mm) is about 15mm from the outer surface of a (straight) lense. I guess 17/4 bulges more than 15mm??

Click to expand...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

Click to expand...

There are no filter threads on the TSE 17/4 lens. The reference you cite is in error.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=31047972

I have seen a few custom adaptations, some use a short, large diameter tube with a 4x4" holder attached to the front, another uses a TSE 17 lens cap with the front cut off and a 4x4" filter holder attached. As I recall all of these custom filter holders will mechanically vignette with substantial lens movements of tilt or shift. This is the reason there is no lens hood available for this lens.

upnorthfar said:

"filter diameter 77mm":

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Tilt_and_Shift/TS-E_17mm_f4L/index.aspx?specs=1

Click to expand...

a strange, I looked on the german page, normally the european sites are pretty similar (compared to USA)

upnorthfar said:

photonius said:

upnorthfar said:

Are there any? Canons page says 17/4 has 77mm filter thread.

Click to expand...

Which Canon page? the 17/4 TS has a bulging front element, the EU canon sites don't list any filter size, it's not supported.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©