Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L

MaDProFF wrote in post #6925182
Has anyone found this lens to be soft in use?

Only had it a short while & haven't really had time to play (I'm dedicating the next month to get the hang of it!) but un-tilted/shifted, I haven't got any complaints.

The colour rendition is a bit better in my eyes than my other lens in this focal length (Sigma 18-50 2.8 DG).

I am using it on a 30D, so with a combination of my poor eyes and the small veiwfinder, I need time to get the focus right (which is slightly missed in this shot)

Overall, I like it.

MaDProFF wrote in post #6925182
Has anyone found this lens to be soft in use?

Yes.
Canon should upgrade this lens, as Ni#on did.

Well I finally went for one, and took it out today,

Great Fun, HUGE learning Curve, with bags of potential

Will try and add a few more, when I sorted them out

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The sort of shot you would expect to see with this lens, it is amazing how many variations you have with the outcome of a photo with this lens

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Nice Brett, the last one though is perhaps a little over corrected? Did you have a level on the camera?

I have got one but after recent attempts with my TS, decided to check the level & it's well out (what can you expect for $7.50 :oops

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #6961467
Nice Brett, the last one though is perhaps a little over corrected? Did you have a level on the camera?

I have got one but after recent attempts with my TS, decided to check the level & it's well out (what can you expect for $7.50 :oops

Why do you think it is over corrected? the cars, ?

That was hand held as well, I just look in the viewfinder and look for a line that I feel should be horizontal and a line vertical

MaDProFF wrote in post #6962371
Why do you think it is over corrected? the cars, ?

That was hand held as well, I just look in the viewfinder and look for a line that I feel should be horizontal and a line vertical

There appears to be a slight over correction. It is often more noticeable as it is not what the eye sees when looking at tall buildings.

If it helps, I will often under correct a small amount to leave the viewer more comfortable. I will always use a tripod and a level with my TS-E lenses, I also have a grid screen fitted.

Nice shot otherwise Mad...... Maybe we can do some architecture on the next SE meet, and let the others take pictures of snowmen

Hope you do not mind, here is a quick edit....

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Some nice photos appearing here recently.

The verticals on the building photograph look parallel to me. I think the wider section on the top of the tower and that drainpipe running down the side are creating the illusion that it leans out slightly.

Mike

Scuff wrote in post #6963241
There appears to be a slight over correction.

If it helps, I will often under correct a small amount to leave the viewer more comfortable. I will always use a tripod and a level with my TS-E lenses, I also have a grid screen fitted.

Yes, there appears a slight over correction which makes the picture slightly unpleasant.

You made some very good points. I would love to have a grid on my 'L' screen. The 'L' screen has the best focusing aid I do believe I have ever had. Either the aftermarket screen makers don't offer the service of adding a grid to the customer's screen or the cost to do so is ridiculously high. I know it takes but a moment or two to change screens, but it would be nice to have both.

not overcorrected...on my monitor I measure 19mm to the edge of frame at level 3, versus 17.5mm to edge of frame at ground level (I am not measuring to downspout, but to edge of stucco ediface. optical illusion.

Yes, I measured from the nearest corner of the building (below the wider bit!) to the edge of the photograph. Bang-on 21mm right the way down on my monitor.

I appreciate that it's common practice to have slightly converging verticals, but then that gives rise to people complaining about it! On architectural photographs I prefer things dead parallel.

Mike

For whatever reasons, the second picture is more pleasant to look at.

Very nice sheawyatt!

MaDProFF wrote in post #6962371
Why do you think it is over corrected? the cars, ?

That was hand held as well, I just look in the viewfinder and look for a line that I feel should be horizontal and a line vertical

Hi Brett:

Over corrected is probably not the right term I should have used.

I'm not into measurabating images, just rely on how an image appears to my eyes.

To me (and it may be just me), a good architectural image should represent the way your eyes interpret the genuine article and as we would normally expect to see some convergence of the verticals, I believe that it would look better if you had tilted the camera back ever-so slightly.

While your image probably is technically accurate (and very well done, hand held), to me it looks like it is falling towards me (slightly). This is an optical illusion.

There is also something about the centre of the image that I cannot put my finger on but it just doesn't look right.

Please don't take this as a criticism of your work as I have got a long way to get to your skill level and even more work to do using a TS. This being a lens photo archive, it is probably the best place to show an image indicating what the lens is capable of.

(PS I look forward to meeting up with Wazza soon & hearing about your lads excussions)

Mark, that's fine, I always happy to receive views, opinions, it helps me become a better photographer.
I do feel the cars look a little modleish if there is such a word

Heh, say Hi To Wazza, cannot wait till he gets back to to feel our lovely weather we are having