Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

Started Oct 25, 2008 | Discussions
cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

I've been doing some back of the envelope calculations this-evening. I'm on the lookout for a WA to replace my shoddy 17-40L and I'm seriously considering the Nikon. I also have the 24 TS-E for architecture (my main subject) so I was wondering if I could kill two birds with one stone.

Now, please correct me on any of this - I've only quickly worked it through. The 24 TS-E is in fact about 16mm of which you see just a window that fills the frame. Ok, so if you were to use the Nikon to take architecture fully-corrected (i.e.: with the lens parallel to the ground for vertical objects) then there are two issues:

  • you lose half the frame (in portrait especially) when you crop out the unwanted parts

  • you lose resolution

The first of these isn't so bad. The second is interesting - especially if you use a 1DsIII (or the forthcoming 5DII).

16/24 = 0.67x linear resolution. So, doing the conversion you'd end up with the Nikon giving the same result as the TS-E fully shifted and with the equivalent resolution of a 9MP camera (0.67^2 * 21MP = 9.3MP). That's pretty close to a 1Ds Mk I, so by no means bad at all. And of course, the less correction (i.e.: shift) needed, the closer the Nikon gets to 21MP resolution.

Other factors - the Nikon has very little CA at the corners (and one can hardly say the TS-E is stellar in this regard). The Nikon also has low distortion. What's more, you can correct the frame for distortion as-is before cropping, unlike the TS-E where you have to guess how much it was shifted by to correct for CA and distortion.

So, is the Nikon a 24mm TS-E killer? (if we disregard the tilt function)

What are your thoughts?

Jim de Kort
Jim de Kort Regular Member • Posts: 298
Re: Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

It has no tilt, it has no shift... how do you want to compare it to the 24TS-E? Big downside is that you have to rotate the entire lens to set the aperture. This alone makes this combo worthless in my eyes.

Get a D700 and use the Nikon 14-24 as it was intended to be used, on a Nikon.

 Jim de Kort's gear list:Jim de Kort's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 Carl Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 Nokton +6 more
OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
Re: Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

Jim de Kort wrote:

It has no tilt, it has no shift... how do you want to compare it to
the 24TS-E?

It has no tilt, granted - but that's an esoteric function and not much use for architecture.

As for shift - please read again what I wrote. A shift lens is nothing but an ultra-wide angle on which you have a window equal to the size of a normal image circle.

So yes, they are very much comparable.

wimg Regular Member • Posts: 155
Re: Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

Your reasoning is not correct.

With shift you shift the optical axis, you bring certain elements of a building f.e., closer in projection than they are in the standard setup, and there is no way you can do that just by cropping. Any straight lines, even when photographed straight on, will still converge further away from the optical axis. The only way to "fix" this is either by shifting the optical axis, IOW, use a shift lens, or by correction in PP. The latter loses (a lot) more resolution, however, than shifting does.

BTW, tilt is not esoteric. For me it certainly isn't. It is the main use for a tiltshift lens IMO, as it is about puting the DoF plane exactly where you want it; it is about creative freedom.

Kind regards, Wim

 wimg's gear list:wimg's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM +32 more
johtuomi Regular Member • Posts: 254
24 TSE worst canon I ever had so buy Nikon

and I just looket test how good that Nikon 14-14 really is. It's better than any Canon on that 14- 24 range ...

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

 johtuomi's gear list:johtuomi's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Sony Alpha a7S
jpr2 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,325
re: thank you

what an interesting fodder for thoughts, even if there are some
fuzzy parts in this scheme, esp. about an optical axis as it was
already remarked; however, since I'm rather interested in obtaining
14-24/2.8G, but at the same time not exactly happy with 5d2 to
act as a poor replacement for D700, although craving 5d2's resolution,
my doubts are now multiplied (long time 24tse owner, user and
admirer :),

jpr2
--
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/

fred vachss Senior Member • Posts: 1,292
Re: Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

wimg wrote:

Your reasoning is not correct.

With shift you shift the optical axis, you bring certain elements of
a building f.e., closer in projection than they are in the standard
setup, and there is no way you can do that just by cropping. Any
straight lines, even when photographed straight on, will still
converge further away from the optical axis. The only way to "fix"
this is either by shifting the optical axis, IOW, use a shift lens,
or by correction in PP. The latter loses (a lot) more resolution,
however, than shifting does.

If I crop one half of a full-frame image am I not left with an 18 x 24mm image whose center is shifted 9mm from the optic axis of the lens? How exactly is that different from the image recorded by an 18 x 24mm sensor and a TS lens shifted by 9mm?

lespurgeon Senior Member • Posts: 1,190
Test it

I've been known to do this - take photos at 17mm level, then crop bottom and sides. It works, but I'm not convinced it is identical to a TS lens.

Try it out with your 17-40 and decide if a bit wider would work for you.

I'd really like the Schneider PC-Super-Angulon 28mm.

 lespurgeon's gear list:lespurgeon's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +2 more
OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
Re: Test it

lespurgeon wrote:

I've been known to do this - take photos at 17mm level, then crop
bottom and sides. It works, but I'm not convinced it is identical to
a TS lens.

Maybe. The only difference would be that the TS-E lens has a much bigger image circle so the correction needed to get the light rays to converge within it would be less than a lens that has to fit them within a normal image circle. I guess, in theory, that should mean a better image.

However, if you shift the 24TS-E fully you end up with quite a bit of blurring unless you stop down to f8 or more. The Nikon seems to be sharp even wide open.

Thanks for your comments.

OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
Re: Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

wimg wrote:

Your reasoning is not correct.

With shift you shift the optical axis, you bring certain elements of
a building f.e., closer in projection than they are in the standard
setup, and there is no way you can do that just by cropping. Any
straight lines, even when photographed straight on, will still
converge further away from the optical axis. The only way to "fix"
this is either by shifting the optical axis, IOW, use a shift lens,
or by correction in PP. The latter loses (a lot) more resolution,
however, than shifting does.

How do you think a shift lens works? There is no magic. It's just an ultra-wide lens which has a very large image circle. The only difference between it and a normal ultra wide is the size of the image circle and the mechanical mechanism needed to be able to shift the view within that circle - you are in effect mechanically cropping from a very large image. Other than that there is no difference.

I think my reasoning is completely correct If you do not think this is correct then try it and see!

BTW, tilt is not esoteric. For me it certainly isn't. It is the main
use for a tiltshift lens IMO, as it is about puting the DoF plane
exactly where you want it; it is about creative freedom.

For you it may not be but for a lot of people (including me) it is a rarely used function on a WA lens (tilt is much more useful on the 45 or 90 TS-E - that is where it really shines).

OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
re: thank you

Thanks for your feedback.

Yes, it's certainly something to seriously consider. Having slept on it I'm now more convinced the 14-24 would produce a crisper result than the TS-E - and no more stopping down the TS-E to f8+ to get good results on full shift.

jpr2 wrote:

what an interesting fodder for thoughts, even if there are some
fuzzy parts in this scheme, esp. about an optical axis as it was
already remarked; however, since I'm rather interested in obtaining
14-24/2.8G, but at the same time not exactly happy with 5d2 to
act as a poor replacement for D700, although craving 5d2's resolution,
my doubts are now multiplied (long time 24tse owner, user and
admirer :),

jpr2
--
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/

OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
Re: Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

fred vachss wrote:

If I crop one half of a full-frame image am I not left with an 18 x
24mm image whose center is shifted 9mm from the optic axis of the
lens? How exactly is that different from the image recorded by an 18
x 24mm sensor and a TS lens shifted by 9mm?

That's correct as far as I'm aware.

wimg Regular Member • Posts: 155
Re: Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

cbnphoto wrote:

wimg wrote:

Your reasoning is not correct.

With shift you shift the optical axis, you bring certain elements of
a building f.e., closer in projection than they are in the standard
setup, and there is no way you can do that just by cropping. Any
straight lines, even when photographed straight on, will still
converge further away from the optical axis. The only way to "fix"
this is either by shifting the optical axis, IOW, use a shift lens,
or by correction in PP. The latter loses (a lot) more resolution,
however, than shifting does.

How do you think a shift lens works? There is no magic. It's just an
ultra-wide lens which has a very large image circle. The only
difference between it and a normal ultra wide is the size of the
image circle and the mechanical mechanism needed to be able to shift
the view within that circle - you are in effect mechanically cropping
from a very large image. Other than that there is no difference.

No, not true. The big difference is that you can reposition the optical axis of a TS-lens relative to the image and object planes, while keeping the image plane in the same position. You can't do this by cropping.

I am completely aware of the fact that a TS-lens has a much bigger image circle than a normal lens designed for FF of the same AoV, there is nothing new about that. I did the calculations myself, based on the data provided by Canon.

I think my reasoning is completely correct If you do not think
this is correct then try it and see!

You can be sure I have. This is why I own the TS trifecta. One of the main reasons to go Canon.

And no, your theory is not correct, because you're shifting a different part in this equation, namely the to be captured part of the image plane rather than the optical axis. If this wasn't the case, we would have never needed technical cameras in the first place.

Take a picture of a tallish building with straight edges, with a non-TS lens. Even if you manage to take a picture halfway the height of that building, and especially if you use a WA or UWA, straight lines will converge towards the edges and corners of the picture. This is caused by the rectilinear design of lenses. And convergence of lines is worse with (U)WA.

The only way to get around is, is to shift the optical axis of your system, i.e., use shift.

You could simulate this to a degree with a non-TS lens by tilting camera and lens in the opposite direction of the convergence, IOW, for a tall building down towards the ground, but you'd need a small aperture to compensate for this, and you might be lucky if you can use half of the image, because the magnification of the "shift" of the optical axis is essentially done at the image end, which means large movements to get it right. With a TS-lens it is done at the end where it has most influence, the optical end, which is why you only need tiny adjustments of the optical axis. Plus, the entire image is used. The only disadvantge to this way of doing it is that you need a wider image circle in order to capture the image. However, you don't need to stop down as much as with a non-TS lens.

Give it a try and you will see what I mean.

BTW, tilt is not esoteric. For me it certainly isn't. It is the main
use for a tiltshift lens IMO, as it is about puting the DoF plane
exactly where you want it; it is about creative freedom.

For you it may not be but for a lot of people (including me) it is a
rarely used function on a WA lens (tilt is much more useful on the 45
or 90 TS-E - that is where it really shines).

Do you realize, f.e., you can do macro with a WA TS and put the DoF plane exactly where you want it? Just an example. I think you need to explore the possibilities of a TS lens to really understand. Even with buildings it is extremely useful. Imagine you can only stand fairly close to the corner of a building and you want the whole front to the left of you sharp, and have no converging lines straight up. The only way to do this is use both tilt and shift.

Anyway, you don't have to agree, of course. But you're wrong in your assumption that shift is the same as cropping. If that was the case, we would never have had technical cameras or TS-lenses, just high resolution film and sensors.

As I mentioned, give pointing your camera down a try, and see how you like that, and if it works for you.

Kind regards, Wim

 wimg's gear list:wimg's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM +32 more
OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
OK, here is an Example

Before moving on to an actual example, I'll just reply to your points:

wimg wrote:

No, not true. The big difference is that you can reposition the
optical axis of a TS-lens relative to the image and object planes,
while keeping the image plane in the same position. You can't do this
by cropping.

Actually, yes you can. There is no difference. A shift movement is nothing but a mechanical crop from a large image circle.

I think my reasoning is completely correct If you do not think
this is correct then try it and see!

You can be sure I have. This is why I own the TS trifecta. One of the
main reasons to go Canon.

I don't think you have. Unless, of course, you are describing some completely different setup to what I suggested in my original post.

And no, your theory is not correct, because you're shifting a
different part in this equation, namely the to be captured part of
the image plane rather than the optical axis. If this wasn't the
case, we would have never needed technical cameras in the first place.

My theory is very much correct w.r.t my original post as far as I can see. There are reasons for having technical cameras, but those reasons are different from the ones you are describing.

Take a picture of a tallish building with straight edges, with a
non-TS lens. Even if you manage to take a picture halfway the height
of that building, and especially if you use a WA or UWA, straight
lines will converge towards the edges and corners of the picture.
This is caused by the rectilinear design of lenses. And convergence
of lines is worse with (U)WA.

If we are talking about a rectilinear lens (and that is what both a TS-E and a standard WA non-fisheye lens are) then there is no convergence of lines if the lens is perpendicular to the plane being photographed. Actually, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. If lines converged towards the top or corners then either it would not be a rectilinear lens or it has not been pointed at the scene correctly.

The only way to get around is, is to shift the optical axis of your
system, i.e., use shift.

Or crop a larger image circle. Or crop from a normal image circle using a wider angle lens.

You could simulate this to a degree with a non-TS lens by tilting
camera and lens in the opposite direction of the convergence, IOW,
for a tall building down towards the ground,

No. In that case you would end up with lines that diverge.

but you'd need a small
aperture to compensate for this, and you might be lucky if you can
use half of the image, because the magnification of the "shift" of

"magnification of the shift"? I think you need to explain what you mean.

Give it a try and you will see what I mean.

Well actually, I went out today to do some other lens tests and to also compare resolution as indicated by my theory.

Perhaps you can use your expert eye and tell me which of the following two pictures is the result of cropping from a 17-40 image and which is a full-frame from a TS-E.

I'll post the RAW files once you give me your opinion and explain to me where the converging lines in the UWA image are (hint: there is one small difference - the 17-40 has more pronounced barrel distortion, but rather than being accused of tampering I have not removed this using the DPP distortion removal facility. All that was done was to crop from the 17-40 and to reduce the sized of both images for web display):

http://www.digiatlas.org/lenstest/tower-test.html

Do you realize, f.e., you can do macro with a WA TS and put the DoF
plane exactly where you want it? Just an example. I think you need to
explore the possibilities of a TS lens to really understand. Even
with buildings it is extremely useful. Imagine you can only stand
fairly close to the corner of a building and you want the whole front
to the left of you sharp, and have no converging lines straight up.
The only way to do this is use both tilt and shift.

Given that the 24TS-E has a ton of DOF there is little need to do this - unless you are standing within a few feet of the building, but in that case I doubt 24mm would be enough to cover the scene.

Anyway, you don't have to agree, of course.

I'm willing to agree, but only when I see evidence or have in front of me a reasonable theory!

But you're wrong in your
assumption that shift is the same as cropping.

As I said - you have two examples. Go for it. I'd be interested to know why you think I am wrong.

If that was the case,
we would never have had technical cameras or TS-lenses, just high
resolution film and sensors.

There are two reasons. Firstly the resolution is reduced because of cropping from a full-frame image. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, such a lens allows you to frame it exactly at the time rather than having to do so later in PP.

Of course, things like the TS-E lenses are pretty limited compared to a large format lens with a full set of movements. There are plenty of reasons for such lenses to exist, but if we are talking 35mm and shift only then it looks like the Nikon 14-24 will bury the 24 TS-E if using a top-end body (21MP+).

Anyway, I await your reply.

cheers,
c.

wimg Regular Member • Posts: 155
Re: OK, here is an Example

cbnphoto wrote:

"magnification of the shift"? I think you need to explain what you mean.

Compared to a shift at the image end, which is what you do by cropping and/or tilting the camera forward, a shift of the optical axis is much more efficient. You only need millimetres to get the same effect, because the movement is at the optical centre or close to it, and will be magnified quite a bit, compared to movement at the sensor or image side. Essentially, you have two lines intersecting each other at the optical centre of a lens, creating two similar (don't know the English word) triangles linked to each other. moving the sensor plane or the object plane has much less effect to the FoV than moving the optical centre has.

Give it a try and you will see what I mean.

Well actually, I went out today to do some other lens tests and to
also compare resolution as indicated by my theory.

Perhaps you can use your expert eye and tell me which of the
following two pictures is the result of cropping from a 17-40 image
and which is a full-frame from a TS-E.

The right one is the TS-E. The lines are slightly less converging; actually only the right corner is, while the two other corners are parallel, and the picture shows more detail, even though contrast is slightly less towards the top part of the tower.

I'll post the RAW files once you give me your opinion and explain to
me where the converging lines in the UWA image are (hint: there is
one small difference - the 17-40 has more pronounced barrel
distortion, but rather than being accused of tampering I have not
removed this using the DPP distortion removal facility. All that was
done was to crop from the 17-40 and to reduce the sized of both
images for web display):

http://www.digiatlas.org/lenstest/tower-test.html

....

But you're wrong in your
assumption that shift is the same as cropping.

As I said - you have two examples. Go for it. I'd be interested to
know why you think I am wrong.

Because cropping is "shifting" at the image side of things, while a proper shift means changing the position of the optical axis.

If that was the case,
we would never have had technical cameras or TS-lenses, just high
resolution film and sensors.

There are two reasons. Firstly the resolution is reduced because of
cropping from a full-frame image. Secondly, and perhaps more
importantly, such a lens allows you to frame it exactly at the time
rather than having to do so later in PP.

Of course, things like the TS-E lenses are pretty limited compared to
a large format lens with a full set of movements. There are plenty of
reasons for such lenses to exist, but if we are talking 35mm and
shift only then it looks like the Nikon 14-24 will bury the 24 TS-E
if using a top-end body (21MP+).

Anyway, I await your reply.

cheers,
c.

Nice pictures, BTW! I just love these old churches.

The outer corners of the tower, in both pictures, are still converging going from bottom to top. It is not only measurable, but also visible, and IMO clearly visible. The tower on the right hand side has, however only 1 converging line, the corner on the right.

However, I don't find it disturbing.

I think it really depends on what you want to do or prefer.

BTW, you could get a Nikon TS lens instead of a Canon one if you wanted, they also have a 24 now. As a closing note: KR thinks that although the 14-24 is an excellent lens, the 16-35L II / 5D combo is still better than a Nikon D3 (or D700) / 14-24 combo, because the corners of the 16-35 L II on a 5D are still sharper and show more detail than a 14-24's corners on a D3 or D700 :). You may want to do a comparison before committing to either option (14-24, 16-35 LII, TS-E 24, Nikon TS 24). It'll cost you the price of a Nikon-G to EOS adapter, but I think it is worth the price just for finding out.

Kind regards, Wim

 wimg's gear list:wimg's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM +32 more
Decoboy Regular Member • Posts: 172
TSE beats my 10-22 everytime - on tripod

I shoot a lot of interiors using my 40D and now 50D.

I have both the EFS 10-22 and the 24 TSE amongst my arsenal.

IMO your comments about using an UWA and cropping are quite valid however... if I'm shooting with a tripod then there is no contest. Sure the 10-22 will get it in one shot, however the TSE with 2 or 3 images when stitched blows away the 10-22 result - as one would expect. As I'm effectively capturing the same image in 3 parts with the TSE the stitching is (almost) pixel perfect. The tiny POV difference from the 6-8mm shift means I have to pixel peep to find the joins after letting CS3 do its thing all on auto!

For extra critical/difficult situations (e.g. where I have nearby objects in the 'overlap' area) I'm making a tripod mount for the TSE that will mean the camera moves and not the lens relative to the subject. Although I should restate this is rarely necessary.

-- hide signature --

Brian

 Decoboy's gear list:Decoboy's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS-1D X Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +7 more
Decoboy Regular Member • Posts: 172
Additional points re TSE

I should also make the following points, I'm sure you realise these as you already own a TSE24, however they are worth saying out loud just to remind ourselves.

  • A TSE24 is not a wide angle 'primarily', it's firstly a perspective and focus plane control lens - designed for special purposes, as opposed to a general purpose WA or UWA

  • By their nature TSE's are not terribly easy to use - not much auto thingy's here

  • Like you I shoot architecture - architecture AYK is both inside and outside

  • Agree that tilts is of lesser use outside (but can be valuable)

  • Tilt is however regularly useful inside - sometimes mandatory to get the shot

  • Tilt is not easy to master, I'm not close to there yet. However digital with nice screens sure helps. However in these days of instant gratification, the time to set up the shot using tilt is a place too far away for most, even though no amount of PS can do what tilt can do.

That's a shame, for me the real skill in photography is getting the framing, composition etc just right. Just squeezing the scene onto a sensor is not the end game, it's how you do it and how you composed it that matters.

OK, the TSE is not in my bag as an everyday thing, it adds some weight and it's limited. But if I know I'm doing interiors, or exteriors with foreground/background challenges, and have the time to set up the shot/tripod etc, that's the first lens in the bag.
--
Brian

 Decoboy's gear list:Decoboy's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS-1D X Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +7 more
OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
Re: OK, here is an Example

wimg wrote:

The right one is the TS-E. The lines are slightly less converging;
actually only the right corner is, while the two other corners are
parallel, and the picture shows more detail, even though contrast is
slightly less towards the top part of the tower.

One picture does not show more detail than the other. Both were resized to far less than their original sizes, so given their current resolution on that web page there is no more detail to be had from either picture.

Both display very slight convergence - it is barrel distortion and has nothing to do with the shifting or not shifting. As I said, the 17-40 shows slightly more because it is optically not corrected as much as the TS-E (bearing in mind that correcting it in software is a "no brainer" whereas correcting the barrel distortion from the TS-E would be a nightmare unless you knew exactly how much it was shifted by).

Because cropping is "shifting" at the image side of things, while a
proper shift means changing the position of the optical axis.

Sigh. It's a mechanical crop. There is nothing more to it than that. By what you have written you seem to not be able to see the principle on which a shift lens works. Yes you move the optical axis - no-one is denying that. However that is the same as cropping from a larger image circle . Exactly the same. No ifs, no buts. That's what a shift lens does mechanically.

I think the images demonstrate clearly that the result is the same (the only difference being the minor differences due to the slightly different barrel distortion on each lens). There are none of the things you claimed in your last posting. Nor does it require "pointing the camera at the ground" as you suggested.This is a false assumption and I have a sneaking suspicion that you have based your remark on the optical illusion one gets from shooting architecture with extreme shift whereby buildings appear to be wider at the top and appear to have diverging sides towards the top - exactly what you would get by pointing a lens downwards.

Nice pictures, BTW! I just love these old churches.

Yes they are nice aren't they. They also make useful test subjects - as in this case!

I think it really depends on what you want to do or prefer.

Of course it does. So you are willing to now state that I am not "wrong"? Good. I'll take that as a "yes"!

I have not posted the originals yet as I am not at home. However, I can reveal the following:

  • the TS-E was shifted by about 7mm in order to give the same "shifting" that a 17mm lens gives. 7mm is the first step into the red ("best not to use this amount of shift") zone.

  • colour fringing is the same in each picture when resized to the same size. Given that the 17-40 is not very good and produces a small image that's pretty damning for the 24TS-E. As the Nikon 14-24 displays very little colour fringing I would expect it to bury the TS-E (as previously stated).

  • the crop from the original 17-40 21MP image produces a 9.8MP image; perfectly acceptable (and about the same as a TS-E image from a 1Ds Mk I)

  • the TS-E displays more focus distortion in the extreme shifted part of the image. Again - given that the 17-40 is not a good WA lens, that's pretty damning on the TS-E.

  • the Nikon 14-24 would not only be able to replicate the full shift of the TS-E (11mm) but could give an equivalent shift of nearly 13mm at 14mm FL. Given the low colour fringing and excellent sharpness, it sounds like it would be a much better solution (the only downside being less resolution in the final image - I make it about 7MP, which is still good enough for magazine size images).

  • It's a shame Canon don't revamp their entire WA line-up - then we wouldn't have to look at using adapted 3rd party lenses... sigh.

I'll update the web page with full results soon.

OP cbnphoto New Member • Posts: 17
thank you

Decoboy wrote:

I should also make the following points, I'm sure you realise these
as you already own a TSE24, however they are worth saying out loud
just to remind ourselves.

All good points.

I admit to not using Tilt very much. Agreed it is not easy to master and cannot be easily replaced in software (although it is not impossible; using some clever software, the name of which escapes me, you can now stack images to give extended DOF - it's pretty impressive stuff).

That's a shame, for me the real skill in photography is getting the
framing, composition etc just right. Just squeezing the scene onto a
sensor is not the end game, it's how you do it and how you composed
it that matters.

True. It's one of the nice things about lenses like the TS-E - you see the composition then and there. Much better than ending up with huge amounts of carpeted foreground at the bottom of the picture that then needs to be cropped out. Then again, you have more freedom when cropping later to achieve composition. Always trade-offs

Having said that though, it looks as though even the 17-40L (not renowned for edge sharpness) trumps the 24TS-E if resolution is ignored. With 21MP+ to play with we can now start to seriously look at using UWA's as alternatives to specialist shift lenses. That was the purpose of my original posting; to explore this possibility.

After all, there has to be some use for 21MP other than wasting disk space

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

wimg Regular Member • Posts: 155
Re: OK, here is an Example

cbnphoto wrote:

Sigh. It's a mechanical crop. There is nothing more to it than that.
By what you have written you seem to not be able to see the principle
on which a shift lens works. Yes you move the optical axis - no-one
is denying that. However that is the same as cropping from a larger
image circle
. Exactly the same. No ifs, no buts. That's what a shift
lens does mechanically.

Ok, I decided to get out paper and trigonometry bits and pieces, played some, did some calculations, and I apologize unreservedly. You're right.

Looks like I misled myself, mainly because I like to fill my frames completely with my subjects. And I rarely if ever use shift, only tilt.

I think the images demonstrate clearly that the result is the same
(the only difference being the minor differences due to the slightly
different barrel distortion on each lens). There are none of the
things you claimed in your last posting. Nor does it require
"pointing the camera at the ground" as you suggested.This is a false
assumption and I have a sneaking suspicion that you have based your
remark on the optical illusion one gets from shooting architecture
with extreme shift whereby buildings appear to be wider at the top
and appear to have diverging sides towards the top - exactly what you
would get by pointing a lens downwards.

That's exactly what I meant and this is something I did in the past, in my analog days.

Of course it does. So you are willing to now state that I am not
"wrong"? Good. I'll take that as a "yes"!

As I said higher up: yes :).

  • the Nikon 14-24 would not only be able to replicate the full shift

of the TS-E (11mm) but could give an equivalent shift of nearly 13mm
at 14mm FL. Given the low colour fringing and excellent sharpness, it
sounds like it would be a much better solution (the only downside
being less resolution in the final image - I make it about 7MP, which
is still good enough for magazine size images).

  • It's a shame Canon don't revamp their entire WA line-up - then we

wouldn't have to look at using adapted 3rd party lenses... sigh.

I'll update the web page with full results soon.

I'd honestly still have a look at the 16-35 II if I were you, or at least compare the 16-35 II and the 14-24 Nikon before committing yourself. If KR says a 5D + 16-35 II is sharper than a D3 or D700 with 14-24, there may well be something in this.

BTW, I have my 17-40 and TS-E 24 with me this week, so weather permitting I'll go and experiment a little along your line of thought myself.

Kind regards, Wim

P.S.: only quoted some bits, the more significant ones I think

 wimg's gear list:wimg's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM +32 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads