Unique lens

Pros: Uniqueness, sharpness, overall image quality, build quality, lack of CA, lack of distortion, wideness.
Cons: Expensive, wideness (sometimes...), unprotected frontal element, no filters.

This is a truly unique lens: I'm glad Canon did it! With it, Canon shooters can achieve certain imagery that no other people using SRLs can...

The image quality is simply stunning. After using it, all my other TS-E lenses (the 24 Mk I and even the 45) seem lemons.

Of course, corner sharpness, if shifted/tilted, is not the same, but anyway the images are amazing.

It's very hard to hand hold the lens, even with an appropriate focus screen, but, well, any serious architectural work can hardly be done without a tripod...

Felipe Rodríguez wrote:

This is a truly unique lens: I'm glad Canon did it! With it, Canon shooters can achieve certain imagery that no other people using SRLs can

Hi Felipe, I guess, today more Sony shooter use this lens that Canon; I think this lens is simply perfect on a Sony because of the number of advantages a Sony body gives: IBIS, focus peaking with magnification, 42M stunning image quality). Mine is on its way for my Sony A9. I used a Kipon Tilt-Shift adapter with a couple of Nikon-mount lenses on my mirrorless cameras, but now on the full-frame I decided to go for a dedicated TS lens.

Of course, corner sharpness, if shifted/tilted, is not the same

When tilted corner sharpness goes away in most situation, that is normal. But, I'd expect (near) perfect sharpness for shifting.

It's very hard to hand hold the lens, even with an appropriate focus screen

Fortunately, today with the excellent focus peaking, and magnification combined, along with the IBIS in Sony full-frame cameras, I guess, handheld (fun/artistic) TS-E photography is possible, too. I fully agree, for architecture, where lines are terribly important, tripod is the way to use.

I am completely blown with your collection of tilt/shift photos you presented here http://www.felipe-rodriguez.com/Personal-Projects/Old-Seville/  Absolutely stunning.

Felipe Rodríguez wrote:

Pros: Uniqueness, sharpness, overall image quality, build quality, lack of CA, lack of distortion, wideness.
Cons: Expensive, wideness (sometimes...), unprotected frontal element, no filters.

This is a truly unique lens: I'm glad Canon did it! With it, Canon shooters can achieve certain imagery that no other people using SRLs can...

The image quality is simply stunning. After using it, all my other TS-E lenses (the 24 Mk I and even the 45) seem lemons.

Of course, corner sharpness, if shifted/tilted, is not the same, but anyway the images are amazing.

It's very hard to hand hold the lens, even with an appropriate focus screen, but, well, any serious architectural work can hardly be done without a tripod...

Congratulations on your purchase of a truly great lens, Felipe.   I bought one recently and got a 6D to use it with.   It doubles as a 26mm tilt shift on my 60D, but is limited on it's shift range because of the built in flash.   I wonder if there is a practical way to remove the flash.

I do mostly architectural and landscape / cityscape photos, both for fun and for my real estate business as well as a few for other brokers.    I originally intended to use my 10-22 on the 60D for ordinary properties and the 17 for special shots, high end properties, or artistic shots.

Then I had a tripod accident with the 60D ad 10-22 and had to use the 17 for some ordinary property shots.   I got used to it after doing about a house and a half with it, and now it's not much more trouble to use at all.   The effect of the shift on basic interiors is dramatic.

I will fix the 10-22, but I may not use it as much.   As you said, using the 17 hand held is difficult.   Maybe I'll use it hand held more and get used to that, though.   There are times you want to walk throughout without a tripod and get snap shots of what you see but still need the width.

I looked at your shots where you used the tilt to affect the DOF.   Very interesting shots.  I have yet to use the tilt.   I shoot it on Av at f10 focused on infinity, and everything is sharp.

I like pretty pictures as much as the next guy, but I have to thoroughly document the properties I photograph, so I take some really mundane pictures.  As mundane as some rooms are, I want to make them look as good as I can.   Here is and example of what the 17 can do for the even the most mundane room in the house.

Better looking more complex rooms can hide the distortion, and unfortunately, I don't have two that are as similar.  Still the improvement is well worth the effort.

The quality of the photographs makes a big difference in the number of calls you get for the property.

mmarian wrote:

When shooting interiors with ceiling downlights this lens is succeptible to flares. I always try to cover with hand the front element protecting it from any ceiling light shining directly at it.

I haven''t noticed that, but I haven't had the lens long.

I owned this this lens and sold it but there are times I have sellers remorse. I didn't find I used it too much but when I needed it (architecture), it was great.

mmarian wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

mmarian wrote:

When shooting interiors with ceiling downlights this lens is succeptible to flares. I always try to cover with hand the front element protecting it from any ceiling light shining directly at it.

yes, depending on the light source and where you are point to, this can be a big issue, same for landscape, when the sun is in the " right" angle, the flare is crazy.

In interior situation with multiple light sources, especially the bright ceiling downlights the situation can become very serious. The multiple bright flares of various colors and sizes can populate the entire frame and they can ruin your photo unless you would be prepared to spend time in PS trying to retouch them out which can be very tricky indeed. Try to schield the front element as much as possible without getting the shields in the frame, would be my advice.

I guess one solution would be to turn the lights off.   Sometime I turn off most lights, or all if there are good windows, just to solve the problem of many different colored lights in the same room.    Of course you can't do that in a public place.

Hi Felipe, thanks for your review. I see that you now own the 19mm PC-E from Nikon. How do you think theses two compare? I want to get a Tilt Shift for my Z7 until something native is released by Nikon for the Z-mount and am wondering if it's worth to spend the extra money on the 19mm.

• You HibikiTaisuna wrote:

Hi Felipe, thanks for your review. I see that you now own the 19mm PC-E from Nikon. How do you think theses two compare? I want to get a Tilt Shift for my Z7 until something native is released by Nikon for the Z-mount and am wondering if it's worth to spend the extra money on the 19mm.

Since I was in this thread originally, under my old account, I feel qualified to comment.

Wider is better. If the Z-EF adapter allows you to control the aperture, get the TSE 17.

Felipe Rodríguez wrote:

Pros: Uniqueness, sharpness, overall image quality, build quality, lack of CA, lack of distortion, wideness.
Cons: Expensive, wideness (sometimes...), unprotected frontal element, no filters.

Very expensive

mmarian wrote:

Eddie Rizk wrote:

• You HibikiTaisuna wrote:

Hi Felipe, thanks for your review. I see that you now own the 19mm PC-E from Nikon. How do you think theses two compare? I want to get a Tilt Shift for my Z7 until something native is released by Nikon for the Z-mount and am wondering if it's worth to spend the extra money on the 19mm.

Since I was in this thread originally, under my old account, I feel qualified to comment.

Wider is better. If the Z-EF adapter allows you to control the aperture, get the TSE 17.

From my personal experience from owing and using the 17 and 24 I'd say get the 24mm. I use it maybe 85% for interior and exterior architectural photography. The 17mm is reserved for tight spaces i.e. bathrooms where there is no room to step back and use the 24. The 17 has steep perspective and the distortion near edges can be a problem, so the shifting and composition need to be carefully considered. Also the 17 mm is prone to blooming when downlights hit the front bulging element. I try to shade it with cartboard or hand in such situations

A lot of people shoot interiors with a 24.  I'm not that good.  I need 17.  I'm also obsessed with showing the general idea of a whole room in one shot and sometimes the relationship of several rooms to each other in one shot.

yettercume wrote:

Felipe Rodríguez wrote:

Pros: Uniqueness, sharpness, overall image quality, build quality, lack of CA, lack of distortion, wideness.
Cons: Expensive, wideness (sometimes...), unprotected frontal element, no filters.

Very expensive

Not for what it is, my friend.  Many lenses cost more, but none can do what the TSE 17 does.