Canon EF tilt shift 24mm versions

AceVentura0212 wrote:

Hello, all I’m looking at buying a used tilt shift lens for architecture and urban landscape photography for my 5DsR I was thinking of the 24mm as it seems like the sweet spot between the 17mm and the 50mm and have two questions.

1. Is the selection of the 24mm appropriate or should I consider the 17 or 50? Mostly I’ll be shooting individual low rise buildings in the older areas of Miami. These neighborhoods can be a bit compact, but usually are not cramped. I think the 17 would be too wide and the 50 too long. Thoughts?

The 24 is probably the right FL. However, it can be too wide for exterior shots. I'd recommend adding an EF 1.4x III, in more cases than you'd expect I use an old C/Y fit 35mm f/2.8 PC-Distagon for 'Building Portraits' adding a 1.4x III to the 24 gives 34mm which is basically the same and the IQ is pretty similar too.

2. Assuming I’m right about the 24, which version should I get, the I or the II? The difference on KEH seems to be nearly a 2x premium for version II. Is this version that much better?

Yes, the new version is that much better; I had the Mk 1on an original 1Ds (12mp) and changing ups the made a bigger difference to overall sharpness and quality than the original TS-E going to 21mp on a 5DII.

Thanks in advance

In addition; the 45mm TS-E is better than it's reputation would suggest, and the old non-L version of the 90mm is a good enough lens on my 5Ds that I can't see a need to update.

Finally, I am currently experimenting with a Bronica PS 65mm on a Fotodiox shift adapter for a current project, and it's looking very promising right from wide open.

Just to show what the 45 is capable of...

This is from the Zeiss C/Y 35mm PC-Distagon...

AceVentura0212 wrote:

Hello, all I’m looking at buying a used tilt shift lens for architecture and urban landscape photography for my 5DsR I was thinking of the 24mm as it seems like the sweet spot between the 17mm and the 50mm and have two questions.

1. Is the selection of the 24mm appropriate or should I consider the 17 or 50? Mostly I’ll be shooting individual low rise buildings in the older areas of Miami. These neighborhoods can be a bit compact, but usually are not cramped. I think the 17 would be too wide and the 50 too long. Thoughts?
2. Assuming I’m right about the 24, which version should I get, the I or the II? The difference on KEH seems to be nearly a 2x premium for version II. Is this version that much better?
Thanks in advance

I have both 24 II TSE and the 17 Mark I and would go for a 17.

The 17 gives more room for composition, there is more edge distortion but IMHO, very soon the 24 II will be presented with a cramped situation.

You can be almost right on top of such structures with a 17 .

Better a bit too much FOV than too little and the 17 is far superior for general urban scenes

Only a tilt shift will render proper verticals, Tilt shift do not stitch per se, since the images are on the same focal plane on the X & Y axes,  they merge with no seams or artifacts if your X - Y alignment is correct.

This is a 24 II inside.