17mm vs 24mm TS-E

[MarkBarbieri]

I want to get one of the newer Canon Tilt/Shift lenses. The 24mm was my first choice, but it's out-of-stock. Now I'm considering the 17mm.

The 24mm has advantages. The focal length is less extreme. It can take filters (although they are 82mm and I standardized on 77mm filters). It's also a bit cheaper.

The 17mm has a wider FOV, which could be useful for interior architecture shots. It's also available now, so I could have it for my Spring Break trip.

I'm concerned that 17mm on a FF is just too wide for most landscape shooting.

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Which would you get?

 

[VVFF]

I agree with you. I think the 17mm would be more of a specialty lens. Even with architecture, you'd probably want to get so close to a building that it was make it look....odd.

Order the 24mm from Adorama from BandH or Adorama. That way you are at least on the "wait list". Note that they ship lenses without it ever showing up as in stock if the backorders exceed their current shipment. I've had this happen with the Tokina 11-16mm.

Also though I do think that with the right landscape the 17mm is perfectly fine. However, I think you need something with a good deal of elevation difference. Otherwise all that extra coverage is "wasted". I can obviously think of exceptions, but I think you'll get more use of the 24mm.

 

[WDWFigment]

I wouldn't get a T/S lens in the first place, but that is neither here nor there (unless after seeing this you think "OMG TOM WOULDN'T GET IT--NEITHER SHOULD I!!!!!).

However, given that you do want one, I'd hold out for the 24mm. You mention interior shots with the 17mm; maybe I just can't wrap my head around it, but what type of interior shots would benefit from the T/S look? I honestly can't think of anything. I really think 24mm is substantially more useful. Especially on full frame.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Your comment about the "t/s look" indicates that you might not be aware of what a tilt shift lens is designed to do. Just in case you, or anyone else for that matter, isn't familiar with t/s lenses, I'll do a little explaining. It's common to see tilt/shift fake miniature pictures and that has perhaps clouded some people's impressions of tilt shift lenses.

First, tilting and shifting and different actions and serve different purposes. Tilting refers to adjusting the angle of the front part of lens. Shifting refers to moving the front part of the lens away from the center.

To understand the idea of tilting, think of a picture of a beautiful alpine meadow. You want the camera close to the ground and you want everything in sharp focus from the ground right in front of the camera to the distant mountain tops. With a normal lens, you have to make some awkward trade-offs. You can try increase the range of ground that is in focus by stopping down your aperture. Even at something like f/22, you won't everything in focus. On the other hand, you'll lose sharpness do to diffraction and you'll need a much longer shutter speed.

With a tilt shift lens, you can angle the lens. When you do that, you also change the angle of the plane of focus. You can angle it so that it roughly matches the slope of the ground up to the mountains. Now you can shoot at a more optically optimal aperture like f/5.6 and get the ground to the top of the mountains all in sharp focus.

You can also shift the lens to change perspective. In the classic example, consider a picture of a tall building. In order to fit it all in the frame, you need to tilt the camera upwards. When you do so, the sides of the building start to converge, giving the appearance that the building is tilting. With a tilt/shift lens, you don't need to tilt the camera. Instead, you keep it parallel with the building and just shift the lens upwards. That allows you change the angle of view without changing the perspective.

Those are the primary uses for T/S lenses. They are also popular for panoramic pictures (combining different shots with different shifts). Some people also like to tilt the plan of focus to minimize rather than maximize the area in focus. This can be done to make one element stand out. It can also be done for the cheesy fake miniature look.

 

[WDWFigment]

Your comment about the "t/s look" indicates that you might not be aware of what a tilt shift lens is designed to do. Just in case you, or anyone else for that matter, isn't familiar with t/s lenses, I'll do a little explaining. It's common to see tilt/shift fake miniature pictures and that has perhaps clouded some people's impressions of tilt shift lenses.

First, tilting and shifting and different actions and serve different purposes. Tilting refers to adjusting the angle of the front part of lens. Shifting refers to moving the front part of the lens away from the center.

To understand the idea of tilting, think of a picture of a beautiful alpine meadow. You want the camera close to the ground and you want everything in sharp focus from the ground right in front of the camera to the distant mountain tops. With a normal lens, you have to make some awkward trade-offs. You can try increase the range of ground that is in focus by stopping down your aperture. Even at something like f/22, you won't everything in focus. On the other hand, you'll lose sharpness do to diffraction and you'll need a much longer shutter speed.

With a tilt shift lens, you can angle the lens. When you do that, you also change the angle of the plane of focus. You can angle it so that it roughly matches the slope of the ground up to the mountains. Now you can shoot at a more optically optimal aperture like f/5.6 and get the ground to the top of the mountains all in sharp focus.

You can also shift the lens to change perspective. In the classic example, consider a picture of a tall building. In order to fit it all in the frame, you need to tilt the camera upwards. When you do so, the sides of the building start to converge, giving the appearance that the building is tilting. With a tilt/shift lens, you don't need to tilt the camera. Instead, you keep it parallel with the building and just shift the lens upwards. That allows you change the angle of view without changing the perspective.

Those are the primary uses for T/S lenses. They are also popular for panoramic pictures (combining different shots with different shifts). Some people also like to tilt the plan of focus to minimize rather than maximize the area in focus. This can be done to make one element stand out. It can also be done for the cheesy fake miniature look.

Thank you--I did not know any of that (probably should have figured it out before I made a suggestion!). Based on that, I really think 24mm would be more useful. I could see uses inside for 17mm, but I really think 24mm would be better.

Thanks again for the information, too.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Alright, if the leader of the UWA cult is telling me that a 24mm would be better than a 17mm, I should probably listen. I think the 17mm is mainly appealing to me because I can get it now.

 

[boBQuincy]

Of course the 17mm and 24mm both have their uses, and you should get both. If that requires another mortgage, as it would for most people, then it is decision time. In the wide scheme of things 24 is not very wide. I use my 10-22 at 10mm a lot, the equivalent angle of view of a 16mm. Even then I could use wider at times and with T/S it makes the wideness more useful.

For the grand landscape I say go with 17mm, for inside architectural photos the 17 is even a more obvious choice. I can just see Monterey Bay at dusk with a 17 T/S, all the way from Pacific Grove to Santa Cruz!

 

[Code]

I'd wait for the 24 also if it were me, I love UWA but it seems like UWA TS would be a bit more specialized. But also there's one thing you haven't said.. what are you most interested in shooting with it?

 

[WDWFigment]

Alright, if the leader of the UWA cult is telling me that a 24mm would be better than a 17mm, I should probably listen. I think the 17mm is mainly appealing to me because I can get it now.

Maybe it's just an issue with visualization--do you have any links to shots similar to what you'd want to try with the 17mm? I really think the 24mm is more practical, but then again, that's based solely upon what I "see" in my head.

Also keep in mind that less than 2 hours ago I was totally ignorant as to what this lens actually does. So maybe you should take my opinion with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Gdad]

I tend to use real world examples a lot when making buying decisions. Both of these lenses have several Flickr groups dedicated to them- especially the 24. I would spend an evening just using the slideshow gallery and pouring through the images from each- and one or the other will probably move to the front of the line based on what you see yourself doing with the lens.

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=Canon+17mm+ts

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=Canon+24mm+ts

By the way thanks for the interesting explanation of tilt-shift. I kind of understood it a little before but you shed a lot of light on the subject.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Thanks, Jeff. One of the things I'd like to do with which TS-E lens I get is to make a video showing the effects of various tilts and shifts. It took me a while to understand the concepts. I think showing them on video while explaining what is being done to the lens would make it much easier to understand.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Your comment about the "t/s look" indicates that you might not be aware of what a tilt shift lens is designed to do. Just in case you, or anyone else for that matter, isn't familiar with t/s lenses, I'll do a little explaining. It's common to see tilt/shift fake miniature pictures and that has perhaps clouded some people's impressions of tilt shift lenses.

First, tilting and shifting and different actions and serve different purposes. Tilting refers to adjusting the angle of the front part of lens. Shifting refers to moving the front part of the lens away from the center.

To understand the idea of tilting, think of a picture of a beautiful alpine meadow. You want the camera close to the ground and you want everything in sharp focus from the ground right in front of the camera to the distant mountain tops. With a normal lens, you have to make some awkward trade-offs. You can try increase the range of ground that is in focus by stopping down your aperture. Even at something like f/22, you won't everything in focus. On the other hand, you'll lose sharpness do to diffraction and you'll need a much longer shutter speed.

With a tilt shift lens, you can angle the lens. When you do that, you also change the angle of the plane of focus. You can angle it so that it roughly matches the slope of the ground up to the mountains. Now you can shoot at a more optically optimal aperture like f/5.6 and get the ground to the top of the mountains all in sharp focus.

You can also shift the lens to change perspective. In the classic example, consider a picture of a tall building. In order to fit it all in the frame, you need to tilt the camera upwards. When you do so, the sides of the building start to converge, giving the appearance that the building is tilting. With a tilt/shift lens, you don't need to tilt the camera. Instead, you keep it parallel with the building and just shift the lens upwards. That allows you change the angle of view without changing the perspective.

Those are the primary uses for T/S lenses. They are also popular for panoramic pictures (combining different shots with different shifts). Some people also like to tilt the plan of focus to minimize rather than maximize the area in focus. This can be done to make one element stand out. It can also be done for the cheesy fake miniature look.

Wow! Thanks for the detailed explanation! I'll have to bookmark this.