I'm debating the merits of Canon's 14mm f/2.8L versus the 17mm f/4 for use with my Canon 5D Mk II. I shoot mostly landscapes, and I can see that the TS-E could be really useful, but then there's that f/4 Vs. f/2.8 issue. And does 3mm of focal length make that much difference? (I know - it only makes a difference when you need it.) {heavy sigh}
I'd be really curious to hear from anyone that has both lenses, or that has gone through the arguments and come to a decision - and what the reasoning was.
I can't help you with your decision, but the chart above may help show the difference that 3mm can make in a wider angle lens.
However, I read in a recent post in the Photo Gear Reviews forum where a TS lens user mentioned that one can stitch images together for a wider field of view by using the shift feature of the lens without moving the camera.
Check out that topic, which also discusses the option of using a Nikon 14-24 lens with a Canon camera.
The 17mm TSE is actually the widest lens you can put on a 5DII, if you consider shift to both sides the final FOV is around 10mm. The lens has a huge image circle!
I'd go with the TSE even if I don't have one, I've tried the 14mm for night photography but had poor edges and lost at F2.8 against a Samyang 14mm that is much much cheaper.
You can also consider the Nikon 14-24 plus an adapter (best of the beasts) and the Zeiss 21mm F2.8.
Those 3 mm on a wide angle are very meaningful, as John's diagram shows. On a telephoto they would be meaningless, but on a wide angle they make a huge difference. Personally I'd go for the 14mm. I have all the TS lenses and I find I can do most of what they do in Photoshop, except when shooting handheld in which case I can get more depth of field than with non TS lenses.
Thanks for the chart John - it's a helpful visual that I've saved to disk. Both you and Luis mentioned shifting the TS-E lens to get a wider FOV - which I was aware of - but I'm still uncertain about how practical that might be on landscapes during changing light. Alain, thanks for providing the counter-argument to the TS-E lenses!
I'm headed to White Sands, NM next month - maybe I'll just rent a 14mm prime and the 17mm TS-E and do some experimentation.
Thanks to each of you for taking the time to respond to my questions!
While on the topic of 14mm primes...I'd just like to throw out this info about the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm prime lens. Perhaps it's not on the above list because it's a 3rd party lens. I totally understand. However my wallet didn't. Sure it's manual focus and manual aperture but I've heard nothing but stellar comments about it and it appears it doesn't have many QC issues either. Just an FYI-mine gets in on Wed!!
While on the topic of 14mm primes...I'd just like to throw out this info about the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm prime lens. Perhaps it's not on the above list because it's a 3rd party lens. I totally understand. However my wallet didn't. Sure it's manual focus and manual aperture but I've heard nothing but stellar comments about it and it appears it doesn't have many QC issues either. Just an FYI-mine gets in on Wed!!
Personally, I'd go with the TS-E. I own all of the TS-E's with the exception of the 17mm so I'm not certain as to it's distortion with regards to being a super-wide. I decided to stay with the TS-E 24mm II as my widest due to it being distortion-less and it's ability to utilize filters. I will do three vertical images using the shift feature and stitch them in PS to a horizontal or three horizontal images to a vertical. Doing this makes for a super high resolution image also and has a field of view of something near a 16mm. It does sound time consuming but it is not really. The camera doesn't move, only the shift on the lens is used so the images are a near perfect stitch. Also, the TS-E 24mm II (new version) is totally free of CA but the new fixed 24mm L lens is not. You will find that the ability to use the tilt feature to gain extreme DOF while shooting at f/8 or f/11, f-stops that are nearly defraction free, will give you much sharper images. With fixed lenses you'll find the need to use f/18 to f/22 to get the same DOF. These f-stops severely degrade image detail and sharpness due to defraction.
Now, for those that use PS to "correct" image perspective. When you do this you are doing two things. One, you are shrinking and stretching pixels and this degrades the detail and sharpness of the images. Secondly, when you correct the perspective, especially if it is a dramatic correction, you will be cropping a huge amount of the image. A further degradation of the image file, your 14mm field of view magically becomes a 17mm or even longer. There are many tests that have been done comparing the use of TS-E's verses perspective correction in PS and the TS-E's win hands down.
Lastly, I find that tilt and swing are not my mostly used features of the TS-E's, rise and fall and shift are my most used and PS just cannot do that. The ONLY correction in PS is for perspective, for example, straighting trees in a forest scene.
Id go with the 14mmL2. sharp as shi* and easy quick to use. Add DOF Focus bracketing at f 5.6 and your images will numb your brain! The only thing I don't like about it, is the lack of being able to use the 9 stop ND or polarizer around water.
I have the TS-E24mm. The TS-E17 is very much on my wish list.
Posted by Lynn Jones on September 21, 2011 at 6:41 PM
Fortunately you will have lots of depth of field because many of these kinds ol lenses wont let you stop to a very small aperture, 14's will often not stop down below f7 and 17's not much below f 8. Diffraction is the problem and lots of great cameras will protect you from yourself.
I went with the 14mm f/2.8L. At this point it certainly seems like a dubious choice. Despite Mark M's comments about sharpness, mine is disappointingly soft around the edges. I took the time to set up the micro-focus with it on my 5D Mk II. Then I went to Dead Horse Point, UT and shot some landscapes at f/8, tripod-mounted, mirror-locked up, and with a remote shutter release cable. The results were crisp in the middle, and soft and chewy around the edges. Maybe I have a bad copy? I've since deleted the micro-focus settings, and now use Live View at 10x -centered on the extreme edge of the frame- to focus. Results are OK, but not stellar.
Discussion
14 repliesI'd be really curious to hear from anyone that has both lenses, or that has gone through the arguments and come to a decision - and what the reasoning was.
Thanks!
However, I read in a recent post in the Photo Gear Reviews forum where a TS lens user mentioned that one can stitch images together for a wider field of view by using the shift feature of the lens without moving the camera.
Check out that topic, which also discusses the option of using a Nikon 14-24 lens with a Canon camera.
I'd go with the TSE even if I don't have one, I've tried the 14mm for night photography but had poor edges and lost at F2.8 against a Samyang 14mm that is much much cheaper.
You can also consider the Nikon 14-24 plus an adapter (best of the beasts) and the Zeiss 21mm F2.8.
I'm headed to White Sands, NM next month - maybe I'll just rent a 14mm prime and the 17mm TS-E and do some experimentation.
Thanks to each of you for taking the time to respond to my questions!
-A
-A
While on the topic of 14mm primes...I'd just like to throw out this info about the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm prime lens. Perhaps it's not on the above list because it's a 3rd party lens. I totally understand. However my wallet didn't. Sure it's manual focus and manual aperture but I've heard nothing but stellar comments about it and it appears it doesn't have many QC issues either. Just an FYI-mine gets in on Wed!!
While on the topic of 14mm primes...I'd just like to throw out this info about the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm prime lens. Perhaps it's not on the above list because it's a 3rd party lens. I totally understand. However my wallet didn't. Sure it's manual focus and manual aperture but I've heard nothing but stellar comments about it and it appears it doesn't have many QC issues either. Just an FYI-mine gets in on Wed!!
Personally, I'd go with the TS-E. I own all of the TS-E's with the exception of the 17mm so I'm not certain as to it's distortion with regards to being a super-wide. I decided to stay with the TS-E 24mm II as my widest due to it being distortion-less and it's ability to utilize filters. I will do three vertical images using the shift feature and stitch them in PS to a horizontal or three horizontal images to a vertical. Doing this makes for a super high resolution image also and has a field of view of something near a 16mm. It does sound time consuming but it is not really. The camera doesn't move, only the shift on the lens is used so the images are a near perfect stitch. Also, the TS-E 24mm II (new version) is totally free of CA but the new fixed 24mm L lens is not. You will find that the ability to use the tilt feature to gain extreme DOF while shooting at f/8 or f/11, f-stops that are nearly defraction free, will give you much sharper images. With fixed lenses you'll find the need to use f/18 to f/22 to get the same DOF. These f-stops severely degrade image detail and sharpness due to defraction.
Now, for those that use PS to "correct" image perspective. When you do this you are doing two things. One, you are shrinking and stretching pixels and this degrades the detail and sharpness of the images. Secondly, when you correct the perspective, especially if it is a dramatic correction, you will be cropping a huge amount of the image. A further degradation of the image file, your 14mm field of view magically becomes a 17mm or even longer. There are many tests that have been done comparing the use of TS-E's verses perspective correction in PS and the TS-E's win hands down.
Lastly, I find that tilt and swing are not my mostly used features of the TS-E's, rise and fall and shift are my most used and PS just cannot do that. The ONLY correction in PS is for perspective, for example, straighting trees in a forest scene.
Lynn