Reading mode: Light Dark

6D + 17TSE vs D800 + 14-24 + PS6 pc

Go to last post
Last edited:
Both cameras leveled with their own built in EL Both cameras exposure based on the D800E

3sec f8 ISO 100





The highlight above the left light is the moon. Don't worry to much about color rendering as the nikon needs some tweeking as I expected. This photo demonstrates that the TSE can chop away with ease all that unneeded foreground. You can't see it here but both images are very sharp. I do love how the 14-24 rendered less flare than the 17 TSE against those bright lights. I took some photos with the 14mm tilted up. Keystoning get bad very quickly. Ill try to correct the keystoning tomorrow and see how it does. Cheers
 
Last edited:
moonpeep said:
moonpeep wrote:

All depends what you need. Of course a good tilt-shift is going to be better for architecture than a wide angle zoom.
Click to expand...
I'm in the real estate business, so architecture, and to a lesser extent, landscapes are paramount to me in terms of getting the best possible images. I can measure the difference in Loopnet hits and see the difference in the way prospects look at pictures when the quality is better. This has driven me to buy the best laptop screen I can find, the MBPretna, and to look for bigger and better prints for meetings and office walls. I may be getting beyond the point of diminishing returns here, but it's also a lot of fun that I can justify as business.
moonpeep said:
I feel confident saying this -- knowing the canon TSE quality -- even without the test provided, which may or may not be that meaningful. The problem here is copy to copy variability. I'm not certain this is a good copy of the 14-24. The 17mm as well could be better or worse than mean. (not to mention poor controls on this test)

That said, the canon setup would lose for me. I like to shoot storms and and landscapes in low light. A TSE wouldn't be practical.. .they're also not as wide or fast as I'd need.
I shoot in lots of high dynamic range situations... the D800(e) sensor is of great benefit here.
Click to expand...
I do as well, which is why I was considering the switch to Nikon. The 14-24 with the software would give me a lot more versatility than the 17. I still like many types of photography. I am just trying to figure out what I would give up.
moonpeep said:
If I went canon I'd have a worse wide end lens, and a worse sensor.
Click to expand...
The DR on the Nikon would be nice for the architectural and landscape shots. I do like the high ISO capability for shooting social events, but that's more for fun than money. I'm not sure you're right about the wide lens based on this thread, although this is the first I've heard of the 14-24 problems.
moonpeep said:
It just depends what you need to shoot.
Click to expand...
I may try to rent both at the same time for a personal test of my type shots in the same light. I only want to buy one and don't want to change or upgrade for a long time, not only because of the money, but also because of the learning curve.
 
Great side by side. Thanks, Ape.
 
Bamboojled said:
Bamboojled wrote:
Bamboojled said:
Shaun_Nyc wrote:
Bamboojled said:
joger wrote:
14-24vsTS-E17.jpg


but I guess you will find again something to criticize - no problem with that - I simply post what I find interesting - and a 5D II with a TS-E 17 beating a brand new D800E with Nikkor lenses is a very interesting finding -
Click to expand...
Not that I care you’re comparing brand X to brand Y or comparing an f4 prime to a f2.8 zoom. What I find peculiar is you’re comparing a 3 stitch image to single image. Looking at the mtf it's not even a race. Why don't you post a single vs single image ? Forget fov
Click to expand...
Actually Joger is comparing 4 5DIII images stitched against the Nikon.

I am not trying to start a flame war, but come on, comparing 4 stitched images, not giving the same post processing in the Nikon, and then posting this as proof positive of Canon's superiority, smacks of false advertising.

If anything, based on the parameters that you provided, the Nikon Straight image is simply amazing and makes one rethink ever buying the 17TSI...
Click to expand...
actually no!

Obviously you don't see the point in perspective control with a TS lens :-)

But let me elaborate on that.
  1. Most people would try to hold the 14-24 parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the building you want to photograph to avoid tilted lines
  2. Then you would cut the foreground away to get the framing as intended
  3. The resulting FOV might be 17 mm or even 20 mm
  4. With the TS-E lens you can move upwards or sidewards and get always a tack sharp images.
My samples shows the behavior of the 14-24 at 14 mm and f/8.0 on a D800E on the upper image - in the middle of the frame - so 11 mm away from the center of the frame.

The TS-E 17 shot should be some 13 or 14 mm away from the center of the virtual frame. In this case it was shifting and stitching of 4 images (simply) because it is easier to make it symmetrical but in normal conditions one shot might be enough to get the framing.

So the TS-E 17 is not only a bit but significantly sharper even shifted.

As said before - my target is a bigger pixel count - I am not blinded by brand and I don't care about the efforts it takes to get to better image quality.

  • One option would be a single shot FF XY Mpixel camera with an excellent lens
  • Another option is a Phase One Digital back with x0 Mpixel with Schneider-Kreuznach lens
  • A further option would be a wide angle lens and tilting the camera and using a good panorama software
  • Last option is a good TS lens and recombining the images that had been one image before
The last option gives to my best knowledge superior results.

Don't look at it like you loose FOV with the 17 mm lens - in fact I often crop the final result to a smaller FOV because it looks more natural - a friend of mine (professional architecture photographer) prefers the TS-E 24 II exactly for that reason - here is an examples of an archtecture images taken with the PC-E 24 vs the TS-E 24 - unshiifted

PC-E 24 shot

PC-E 24 shot

TS-E 24 II shot

TS-E 24 II shot

just have a look at the Lavazza Lady or the wooden cabinet und the right lower side and you'll see what I mean.

Both images have been manually focussed om the earth ball in the center of the frame - and the earth is on both images sharp :-)

With a 14-24 I would crop most of the time the foreground away - with the TS-E 17 I shift upwards or sidewards or use the full virtual sensor size - the 14-24 would not suit my quality needs - even if my friend has a bad copy of the 14- 24 and a bad copy of the PC-E 24 and a bad copy of the 70-200 . . .

None of my tested Nikkor lenses is that much better - they are all very good in the center of the frame and from roughly 2/3rds image hight all of them degrade - ALL.

As you can see in my samples before I might do different shots with lots of detail even in the corner of the frame - that's what I am freaking out about. Corner to corner sharpness across the frame and lots of details. Neither the PC-E 24 nor the 14-24 gives me that quality on the D800E.

I was about to buy a D800E plus the 14-24 until my test - there is just something better available for my purposes - which is what the OP asked - would the TS-E 17 perform better on a 6D then a 14-24 on a D800E for landscape and architecture and the answer is YES.(1)




(1) if you can live with the fact that the TS-E 17 is used at f/8 and has no AF and is not water proof - which should be o.k. for most of the circumstances except storm photography :-)
--
__________________________________
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
 
Last edited:
here is the perspective control principle I am talking about:



105024bdfba241938810b2b51f53a9a7.jpg.png




To avoid tilted lines you have to hold your 14-24 horizontal and perpendicular to the building you want to photograph. And then you cut the unneccessary and boaring foreground away.

Instead of doing that you can use a shift lens to shift upwards to get the lines straight and without any distortion or tilting until you get the final FOV you would like to have.

Not only is the 14-24 more distorted and has more vignetting - it also is inferior on the upper 1/3 or the image and thus the resulting image has less resolution and a poorer quality.




With a 14-24 lens you probably won't get anywhere near to the quality the TS-E 17 has - even with single shots!




this applies for example for this kind of shots - except you have a crane or a stairway to climb or a helicopter (which would be - technology wise - my 1st choice) :-)



fa43ef80a95448c5a0357cd217c0a977.jpg


Once again - the question was Architecture and probably Landscape and not single shot action of thunderstorms :-)

--
__________________________________
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
 
The inset photo is pointing the 14mm up to get all of the structure. In PP manipulating the 14mm image to match the 17mm tse you can see the hit the 14mm takes in resolution.



The 14mm is still pretty decent though and IMO could be used easily for web display.



What I find interesting is that the image captured at the site with the TSE was finished at the site where as I had to spend a fair amount of time in PP to work the non shifting lens.



Time is money if you are doing work like this for a living and tse/PC lenses shine in this area.








Note: I've turn these into b&w as the color difference is a distraction. Best wishes to the OP :)
 
Member said:
Apewithacamera wrote:

Both cameras leveled with their own built in EL Both cameras exposure based on the D800E
Click to expand...
5DIII one with TS-E is a bit of overexposed. Why you exposed TS-E based on D800E? Every sensor and lens probably have different sensitivity. You should meter TS-E lens on 5DIII before start shifting or tilting.
Member said:
3sec f8 ISO 100





The highlight above the left light is the moon. Don't worry to much about color rendering as the nikon needs some tweeking as I expected. This photo demonstrates that the TSE can chop away with ease all that unneeded foreground. You can't see it here but both images are very sharp. I do love how the 14-24 rendered less flare than the 17 TSE against those bright lights. I took some photos with the 14mm tilted up. Keystoning get bad very quickly. Ill try to correct the keystoning tomorrow and see how it does. Cheers
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Last edited:
qianp2k said:
qianp2k wrote:
qianp2k said:
Apewithacamera wrote:

Both cameras leveled with their own built in EL Both cameras exposure based on the D800E
Click to expand...
5DIII one with TS-E is a bit of overexposed. Why you exposed TS-E based on D800E? Every sensor and lens probably have different sensitivity. You should meter TS-E lens on 5DIII before T & E before start shifting or tilting.
qianp2k said:
3sec f8 ISO 100





The highlight above the left light is the moon. Don't worry to much about color rendering as the nikon needs some tweeking as I expected. This photo demonstrates that the TSE can chop away with ease all that unneeded foreground. You can't see it here but both images are very sharp. I do love how the 14-24 rendered less flare than the 17 TSE against those bright lights. I took some photos with the 14mm tilted up. Keystoning get bad very quickly. Ill try to correct the keystoning tomorrow and see how it does. Cheers
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
I used the Nikon first and it is still set at factory defaults. So it was sort of a mini test for me to set the Canon to the Nikon settings. It is indeed interesting that there is a difference. Thanks

Adding to this, we often read that Canon tends to underexpose photos and this is result is opposite of that oppinion.
 
Last edited:
Member said:
Apewithacamera wrote:

. . . The 14mm is still pretty decent though and IMO could be used easily for web display.
Click to expand...
fully agree!




For photoshopped perspective controlled images the D800 plus the 14-24 can be used for Web display.
 
710d7928076f408ea0258d0ca0207134.jpg


I don't have access to the RAW files (you might send them to me if you want) but I am sure the 100% crops would be quite revealing.

This image shows exactly what I mean with quality - I never seem to get the shots properly done isn software but I always get them right with my TS-E lenses - with lots of detail

--
__________________________________
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:
joger wrote:

710d7928076f408ea0258d0ca0207134.jpg


I don't have access to the RAW files (you might send them to me if you want) but I am sure the 100% crops would be quite revealing.

This image shows exactly what I mean with quality - I never seem to get the shots properly done isn software but I always get them right with my TS-E lenses - with lots of detail
Click to expand...
Systematic IQ is never just the sensor, but always a combination of lens, camera, workflow and the person behind the viewfinder, IMO of course.
 
Member said:
joger wrote:



I don't have access to the RAW files (you might send them to me if you want) but I am sure the 100% crops would be quite revealing.

This image shows exactly what I mean with quality - I never seem to get the shots properly done isn software but I always get them right with my TS-E lenses - with lots of detail

--
__________________________________
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
Click to expand...
of the church. The 17mm didn't have to deal with keystoning. (I know you know this btw :) ) Below are 100% crops Nikon prior to any perspective correction with the Nikon image. If I could have been on a 50' ladder the Nikon would have had a better chance but that didn't happen. :)




With the resolution of my new camera, if they come out with a 17mm PC the results would be much different.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Member said:
Apewithacamera wrote:

. . .With the resolution of my new camera, if they come out with a 17mm PC the results would be much different.

Cheers
Click to expand...
that's exactly my point!

An excellent PC-E 17 on a D800E or a better camera on a TS-E 17 would be the perfect deal.

But we are living today and we neither have an excellent PC-E 17 nor a 46 MPixel Canon ;-)

But we do have an excellent TS-E 17 which performs in combination with a four year old 5D II better then the best FF camera with the best wide angle zoom on this planet - that's my point.

Let's cross fingers that the rumored PC-E 17 will be significantly better then the PC-E 24 is today (which is in one word crap)

What will stay is the small image circle due to the old (too small) mount
 
Last edited:
joger said:
joger wrote:

here is the perspective control principle I am talking about:



105024bdfba241938810b2b51f53a9a7.jpg.png


To avoid tilted lines you have to hold your 14-24 horizontal and perpendicular to the building you want to photograph. And then you cut the unneccessary and boaring foreground away.

Instead of doing that you can use a shift lens to shift upwards to get the lines straight and without any distortion or tilting until you get the final FOV you would like to have.

Not only is the 14-24 more distorted and has more vignetting - it also is inferior on the upper 1/3 or the image and thus the resulting image has less resolution and a poorer quality.

With a 14-24 lens you probably won't get anywhere near to the quality the TS-E 17 has - even with single shots!

this applies for example for this kind of shots - except you have a crane or a stairway to climb or a helicopter (which would be - technology wise - my 1st choice) :-)

fa43ef80a95448c5a0357cd217c0a977.jpg


Once again - the question was Architecture and probably Landscape and not single shot action of thunderstorms :-)

--
__________________________________
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
Click to expand...
great shot! :)
 
Thanks everyone for the fantastic discussion. Thanks especially to Ape and Joger for the valuable examples.

The next time I'm feeling prosperous, I'm going for the 6D and 17TSE, unless I learn of some excellent reason to do otherwise.
 
Ed Rizk said:
Ed Rizk wrote:

Thanks everyone for the fantastic discussion. Thanks especially to Ape and Joger for the valuable examples.

The next time I'm feeling prosperous, I'm going for the 6D and 17TSE, unless I learn of some excellent reason to do otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
Shaun_Nyc said:
Shaun_Nyc wrote:
Shaun_Nyc said:
Ed Rizk wrote:

Thanks everyone for the fantastic discussion. Thanks especially to Ape and Joger for the valuable examples.

The next time I'm feeling prosperous, I'm going for the 6D and 17TSE, unless I learn of some excellent reason to do otherwise.

--
Ed Rizk
Click to expand...
as long as you’re ok for spending 4300.00 for a camera to shoot real estate that needs to be on a good tripod $ when tilting or shifting, manual focusing (lol) F8.. Stuck at 17mm when you’re not married to the tripod. Stuck w F4 when you need more speed for ambient (interiors). Think it over carefully.
Click to expand...
Of course everyone should think twice or three times before spending money - especially if you intend to do more then just occasionally vacation photos from your kids - where you need just a cop sensor an a super zoom.

The resolution benefit from a D800E e.g. can only be revealed with a very steady tripod, live view focussing (manually) and remote release - that's btw the same procedure I apply for my work for some 80 % of the time - but you can also do handheld shots with shifting - this image was done in Berlin handheld - fully shifted to the left and right - without any tripod - you just have to understand what you do - AF is not needed for highest architecture quality work and you're not stuck to 17 mm you can have all focal lengths (virtually cropped) from 11 up to cropped 20 mm with excellent DIN A2 prints and larger of course

2 shots sideways shifted ±12 mm handheld - 35 MPixel on 5D II

2 shots sideways shifted ±12 mm handheld - 35 MPixel on 5D II

and by the way - you're not stuck to f/8.0 either - it is just the sweet spot to have the least amount of vignetting while remaining a high resolution and a reasonable DOF - surely you can work at f/4.0 as well but why would you do that with a super wide angle lens with a distance of several feet to the subject you want to photograph?




You'll never get a razor thin shallow DOF with a wide angle lens anyhow - and most of the time the buildings have a third dimension to the back as well (not only the front of the building)




Coming from large format photography I can't live without shifting and tilting - a zoom is no benefit for that work if you cant tilt the focal plane or shift sideways so that your silhouette is not reflected in the glass frot of a building.

There are so many situations where no zoom on this planet would do the job but a TS will do perfectly.




Zooms are for action work - TS-lenses are for quality work. For me the 14-24 is a perfect photo journalist lens in tight spaces and many press photos from nikon photographers proof that this is the main purpose of this lens - as stated before - perfect suitable for Web publishing and surely the best wide angle zoom around.

--
__________________________________
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
 
Last edited:
salamander1 said:
salamander1 wrote:
salamander1 said:
joger wrote:

fa43ef80a95448c5a0357cd217c0a977.jpg


Once again - the question was Architecture and probably Landscape and not single shot action of thunderstorms :-)
Click to expand...
great shot! :)
Click to expand...
thx!!

--
__________________________________
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top