Thank you all Billy, Kenneth and Ryan. I think I have the answer, as far as my preference goes, with the limitation of each lens.
Kenneth, great link, thanks for sharing.
Kenneth, great link, thanks for sharing.
TS-E 17mm versus TS-E 24mm (II)
- Thread starter emlee
- Start date
Hi Lee
Sorry, didn't notice your last request till now. [embarassed]
Here is another with shift employed to get the building straight. This is a museum just infront of the Vasa museum in Stockholm. Note that I had to stand some distance away to get the whole building in.
Same building this time I was fooling around with both tilt and shift. The idea was to focus on the [tiny] Lion guarding outside, making it appear bigger than life.
NB: these shots were all handheld.
Last edited:
Here are some shots of the Vasa:
Taken with the TSE24ii 1/10s f3.5 ISO1600 handheld:
I was struggling to get the whole thing in, but this was fairly close.
In vertical orientation, you can see the top of the mast.
Even at f3.5, the almost the whole image is fairly sharp with virtually no CA.
Taken with the TSE24ii 1/10s f3.5 ISO1600 handheld:
I was struggling to get the whole thing in, but this was fairly close.
In vertical orientation, you can see the top of the mast.
Even at f3.5, the almost the whole image is fairly sharp with virtually no CA.
You can also take portraits with the 24 by blurring out the rest of the room:
or create quite surreal effects with this lens:
or create quite surreal effects with this lens:
Here is a post of some FM members trying to post up some of their experiences with filters on the 17 TSE
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/792161
Pretty good flare control with the in the sun shot I thought, btw
Ryan
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/792161
Pretty good flare control with the in the sun shot I thought, btw
Ryan
I think these questions will be apply to other lens selection as well.
Based just on focal length itself.
How wide do you want?
How near or far can you stand?
Are you willing to increase your workflow(time) to stitch to overcome the wideness it can give?
Based just on focal length itself.
How wide do you want?
How near or far can you stand?
Are you willing to increase your workflow(time) to stitch to overcome the wideness it can give?
Hey em, stumbled upon your thread from the front page
He stopped posting but I remember going to this flickr page while link-hopping about TS-E examples, thought it was interesting
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremyesland/
Stitching to get wider should be covered in http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses1.htm
If I'm not mistaken, the Nikon 24mm PC-E goes to max 101° fully shifted, or roughly the FOV of 18mm on FF, though doing that is generally less recommended for IQ
He stopped posting but I remember going to this flickr page while link-hopping about TS-E examples, thought it was interesting
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremyesland/
Stitching to get wider should be covered in http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses1.htm
If I'm not mistaken, the Nikon 24mm PC-E goes to max 101° fully shifted, or roughly the FOV of 18mm on FF, though doing that is generally less recommended for IQ
Interesting site: according to its calculator, the TSE24ii will get you 102.7deg x 53.1deg, equivalent to 14.4mm lens with max 12mm shift horizontally in landscape orientation.
I have used the TS-E 24MkI, Sigma 12-24 and Olympus OM 18...all excellent rectilinear distortion corrected lenses. I do not have any experience with the TS-E 17 nor 24 MkII. Based purely on FL, I will choose the TS-E 17mm over the 24mm. This is as I find that 24mm while sufficient for walkaround purposes, is limiting when it comes to truly dramatic landscapes and architectures. With 24mm, you probably have to include the cars, lamp posts, road signs around a building. A wider lens allows you the flexibility to get closer or crop later.
IMHO, if you don't do architectures, then a TS-E 17 or 24 is probably overkill. I once posted some travel photos done with TS-E 24 MkI, Kit commented that the tilt effect is overused and the novelty of tilt effect will wear off after a while. I find this to be very true. If you are shifting for land/city scapes, you probably can do the same using pano, yes or no?
I use more of 17-21mm for land/city scapes on my zoom lens than 24mm. For people shots 28-35mm more than 24mm. Of course I can use a single 24mm for both but this is just the statistics with my WA zoom.
If you want to consider other things such as ability to use filters, bulbous front elements, etc. Then the 24mm will have the advantage.
IMHO, if you don't do architectures, then a TS-E 17 or 24 is probably overkill. I once posted some travel photos done with TS-E 24 MkI, Kit commented that the tilt effect is overused and the novelty of tilt effect will wear off after a while. I find this to be very true. If you are shifting for land/city scapes, you probably can do the same using pano, yes or no?
I use more of 17-21mm for land/city scapes on my zoom lens than 24mm. For people shots 28-35mm more than 24mm. Of course I can use a single 24mm for both but this is just the statistics with my WA zoom.
If you want to consider other things such as ability to use filters, bulbous front elements, etc. Then the 24mm will have the advantage.
Last edited:
Hi,
I have both the 17 and 24 and do mainly landscapes with them. It's really a big difference between in terms of focal length. I tend to reach for the 24 more often as I can use NDs, ND grads but if I need the 16mm on my 16-35 then I will switch to the 17 TSE and either blend the images or shoot for HDR. There is not a noticeable difference in sharpness and I am comfortable with them both. The 17mm's protruding element is definitely a factor when shooting in rough conditions and I take extreme care when using it. Not being able to use filters is a small gripe that I have and Lee's SW150 filter kit for the Nikon 14-24 will not work on the 17 TSE due to the protrusion of the front element.
There have been times when the 24 was not wide enough and times where the 17 was too wide. It's too different to give a fair comparison but if given a choice, I would take the 24 out as I see the ability to use filters as a huge advantage over the 17. Just a note, the 24 M2 is leagues over the 24 M1 in terms of aberration control. The Mark 1 is distinctly soft when shifted to the extremes.
I have both the 17 and 24 and do mainly landscapes with them. It's really a big difference between in terms of focal length. I tend to reach for the 24 more often as I can use NDs, ND grads but if I need the 16mm on my 16-35 then I will switch to the 17 TSE and either blend the images or shoot for HDR. There is not a noticeable difference in sharpness and I am comfortable with them both. The 17mm's protruding element is definitely a factor when shooting in rough conditions and I take extreme care when using it. Not being able to use filters is a small gripe that I have and Lee's SW150 filter kit for the Nikon 14-24 will not work on the 17 TSE due to the protrusion of the front element.
There have been times when the 24 was not wide enough and times where the 17 was too wide. It's too different to give a fair comparison but if given a choice, I would take the 24 out as I see the ability to use filters as a huge advantage over the 17. Just a note, the 24 M2 is leagues over the 24 M1 in terms of aberration control. The Mark 1 is distinctly soft when shifted to the extremes.
Hi Kenneth67C,
It's between the 2 TSE lenses. The 16-35 does not come close to either of them BUT being a zoom and having the ability to use filters, it retains its place in my bag. This applies to both the 16-35 Mark I and II. Both versions do not come close to the TSE lenses BUT if I had no comparison of any sort, I will be more than satisfied with their image quality.
It's between the 2 TSE lenses. The 16-35 does not come close to either of them BUT being a zoom and having the ability to use filters, it retains its place in my bag. This applies to both the 16-35 Mark I and II. Both versions do not come close to the TSE lenses BUT if I had no comparison of any sort, I will be more than satisfied with their image quality.
let me try to answer the question on behalf.
There is actually no "advantage", but rather should be called an additional feature that may be employed.
1) perform stitching
- you can take multiple shots by shifting the lens left and right to achieve a wider angle coverage ( camera not move ) , the joining of pictures to one another is perfect.
2) perform perspective correction
- if you are shooting some bridges or lamppost or buildings that is close to you, you can shift the lens to correct this distortion.
3) tilt lens.
- deliberate blur of certain areas.
- achieve greater DOF.
if you google tilt-shift lens , you should be able to find tons of information too.
Billy
a 24mm TS lens is the same as any other 24mm lens if you do not tilt or shift it. So, if you do not perform shift or tilt operation, there is no advantage on using a tilt shift lens at all.
Billy
Billy
As Billy has mentioned, the TSE lenses attempt to emulate the camera movements of bellows of view cameras on the smaller format cameras, though somewhat limited.
One can always argue that stitching can nowadays be done "carelessly" with normal variant lenses with multiple frames and stitch post processing, shift lenses gives much less distortion issues and especially true for wide focal lengths. I do stitch rotated with telephotos since it is so much more convenient and less susceptible to distortions, and infact plan to do something way more extreme later this yr heh ( Anyhow, TSE/PC lenses are probably more critical in old film days where shift frames stitched so much easier )
Ryan
Thanks Ryan for the link on the filter tests on 17mm. I doubt I will go to such lengths to use filter on the TS-E 17mm, hence I will still review it as if I cannot use filter on it. Those shots are mainly land/nature scape. hence tilt shift was uncalled for. I could easily have used my 17-40 lens.
Hi coolthought. Thanks for your comments. all these are fair questions, I am quite clear the situation in which a TS-E lens would appeal to me.
Thanks Zichar, this is a wonderful link that I missed. THanks for highlighting.
Thanks manwearpants. Indeed, if it were down to focal length, the answer is obvious. unfortunately, it was not down to just that. sigh. No, pano is not the consideration here. thanks for highlighting.
Lovely! I am glad to hear this feedback. thanks ywh.
Hi coolthought. Thanks for your comments. all these are fair questions, I am quite clear the situation in which a TS-E lens would appeal to me.
Thanks Zichar, this is a wonderful link that I missed. THanks for highlighting.
Thanks manwearpants. Indeed, if it were down to focal length, the answer is obvious. unfortunately, it was not down to just that. sigh. No, pano is not the consideration here. thanks for highlighting.
Lovely! I am glad to hear this feedback. thanks ywh.
Hi ManWearPants, I would like to clarify my predicament which led to this thread. There are also some comments from other members that indicated my thread question was not clear.
To answer your question directly, accurately, in my opinion. No, there is little or no advantages of using TS-E or PC (Nikon's) lenses for landscape. By landscape I mean more of naturescape, where there is lack of man-made structures, or that they are hardly occupying significant space in the picture.
However, living in a city, I find myself taking cityscapes more often than I wish to. That also applies to my travel photography when in cities. This is where I think tilt shift comes in (more shift than tilt). This helps to correct perspective distortion (keystone distortion) in camera as opposed to post processing. There are advantages to the former that has been discussed in many forums.
I also love water front scapes. and Long Exposure is another option I would love to have. This makes the TS-E 17mm out of the consideration.
So no, I was not looking for a solution for panoramic photography. I am perfectly comfortable with doing it on non-shift lenses. It was discussed only because I was secretly hoping that when shifted, the 24mm can achieve close to 17mm fixed lens range, which turned out to be true (14.4mm to be precise). But stitching is also limiting as your scene should not have moderate moving objects that can cause mis-match when stitching.
No, I was not looking for tilt to have fun with miniature photography, though it would most certainly be fun at the start.
No, I am not into architecture, taking room angles at close ranges where the TS-E17mm would prevail. also in such situation, filters are mostly uncalled for, hence it would not have been a deterrent.
Thank you all for such a fruitful discussion. I hope other members benefit from this as well.
Actually various tests have shown that both the TSE 17 and 24ii were sharper and had less CA than their non tilt/shift brethren way out into the corners of the frame. So even if you do not employ tilt/shift, these lenses are sharper than traditional UWA.
Similar threads
