The image has more man than nature, but what the heck…I posted it on the Weekly Challenge a few weeks back and they didn’t complain too loudly.
I picked up the 17mm tilt shift lens a few months ago, along with the 24mm mark II tilt shift lens. I have been a fan of the tilt shift lenses for a long time, but when I got the 1DsIII, I found the older versions just didn’t resolve as nicely as I would like. The 1Ds, and I am sure the 5DII, really bring out the best or worst in lenses. Anyway, I sold all three of the old ones and reconciled myself to landscapes and cityscapes without the benefit of the tilt and shift movements. Then these new ones came out and I had to grab them.
Both lenses are incredible examples of quality workmanship and exceptional optics. Both control Chromatic Aberration better than any other lens I’ve owned. They’re both sharp from center to edge, the 24 perhaps just a bit sharper on the edges than the 17. What surprises me the most is that, stopped down to f/16, most lenses display softness due to diffraction. I don’t see this in either of these lenses…although I haven’t done a pixel-peeping test either.
I haven’t had the opportunity to use the tilt movement much, but I use the shift movement all the time. The image above was shifted up, I believe, to get the Marquam Bridge in the scene while maintaining straight vertical lines.
The 17 is an interesting lens due to the extreme amount of unprotected bulbous glass on the front, it comes with a locking lens cap, really a lens cup, that protects the glass nicely. The cap is on all the time except when I set up and take the shot. Some have lamented that it won’t take filters. I usually only use a UV for protection or a polarizer. I can live without those for the wide angle and the image quality.
Trying to decide between the 17 and the 24 isn’t easy, but if you shoot a lot of architecture, the 24 might be better choice. The 17, like any extreme wide angle, exhibits some distortion at the edges—stretching the image and subject matter. It can make tops of tall buildings look like they’re leaning toward you. The 24 controls the distortion at the edges far better.
Both lenses are incredible for landscape and cityscape photography. They are expensive but well worth it.
Discussion
4 repliesCanon 1DsIII, 17mm T/S, 30 sec @ f/16, ISO 400
Larger Version
The image has more man than nature, but what the heck…I posted it on the Weekly Challenge a few weeks back and they didn’t complain too loudly.
I picked up the 17mm tilt shift lens a few months ago, along with the 24mm mark II tilt shift lens. I have been a fan of the tilt shift lenses for a long time, but when I got the 1DsIII, I found the older versions just didn’t resolve as nicely as I would like. The 1Ds, and I am sure the 5DII, really bring out the best or worst in lenses. Anyway, I sold all three of the old ones and reconciled myself to landscapes and cityscapes without the benefit of the tilt and shift movements. Then these new ones came out and I had to grab them.
Both lenses are incredible examples of quality workmanship and exceptional optics. Both control Chromatic Aberration better than any other lens I’ve owned. They’re both sharp from center to edge, the 24 perhaps just a bit sharper on the edges than the 17. What surprises me the most is that, stopped down to f/16, most lenses display softness due to diffraction. I don’t see this in either of these lenses…although I haven’t done a pixel-peeping test either.
I haven’t had the opportunity to use the tilt movement much, but I use the shift movement all the time. The image above was shifted up, I believe, to get the Marquam Bridge in the scene while maintaining straight vertical lines.
The 17 is an interesting lens due to the extreme amount of unprotected bulbous glass on the front, it comes with a locking lens cap, really a lens cup, that protects the glass nicely. The cap is on all the time except when I set up and take the shot. Some have lamented that it won’t take filters. I usually only use a UV for protection or a polarizer. I can live without those for the wide angle and the image quality.
Trying to decide between the 17 and the 24 isn’t easy, but if you shoot a lot of architecture, the 24 might be better choice. The 17, like any extreme wide angle, exhibits some distortion at the edges—stretching the image and subject matter. It can make tops of tall buildings look like they’re leaning toward you. The 24 controls the distortion at the edges far better.
Both lenses are incredible for landscape and cityscape photography. They are expensive but well worth it.
Here's a very comprehensive Review of the 17mm TSE
Enjoy your wonderful gear.
Roman
Great shot, David. I like the lines.
Nancy