Tilt shift for 1DM4

What would be a better mate for the 1DM4 camera. The 17mm or 24mm tilt shift lens. Looking to do landscape, and street scenes. Thanks.

This is a very hard decision...I know, I just went through it.

I picked the 24mm after much deliberation. I used my 16-35II at 17 and 24 to take a bunch of sample shots with intended use in mind. I liked the perspective of 24mm better (personal choice). The following TS-E 24mm characteristics swayed my decision:

o less perspective distortion
o slightly sharper edges
o ability to accept filters (polarize and neutral density)
o no buldge

If I were shooting for money, especially interiors, the 17mm is the way to go. Also, If I wanted to do panos, I would pick the 17...a really cool feature of the TS-E lens is the ability to shift and rotate the 'lens-only' to make large panos - you are not moving the camera's sensor, you are shifting/rotating the lens only (no camera movement required). Pano's are more effective on the 17, though useful on the 24.

Be sure to read about TS-E paticulars before you buy/use, so your expectations are met. You will have to: get use to manual focus, self-meter and use manual mode for shifting, get use to trial-and-error for tilt focus, etc.

frankk pretty much hit the nail on the head. Either way you go,they're both amazing lenses. The 17 is sharper than I thought and flare is very, I mean very well controlled. The 24 is simply stunning.

I use the 17 on a 1d3 and love it, but I would also like to own the 24 someday.

They are both incredibly, incredibly sharp and both have little-to-no distortion.

Really comes down to focal length vs. filter use.

17mm T/S + 1.4X TC = 2 Birds With One Lens

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13185016
17mm T/S + 1.4X TC = 2 Birds With One Lens

In theory, this works, but it practice the 24 is shaper than the 17. So while the 17 with the TC is excellent, it isn't equivelant to the 24. To be clear, the 17 wasn't equal to the 24 without the TC, so the TC simply widens the quality gap.

I'll admit I've not shot with the 17 but I have a friend who often brings landscape and architecture prints to our monthly camera club meetings and if the 24 is sharper, then the 24 must have been brought to Earth by Aliens.

His work the 17mm is consistently tack sharp front to back and side to side.

yeah - debating sharpness between these two lenses is like debating sharpness between a scimitar and a katana.

they're both going to cut a head off in epic fashion.

I agree. They are both outrageously sharp. Just one is outrageously sharper

My issue is with the TC. I have a 1.4x TC II. It's a great addition to my bag. It does have a quality redution penalty whenever I use it.

On the 1D4 I'd suggest the choice really is limited to the 17 TS-E. I have both and the combination works extremely well. I've also shot with the 24 TS-E. While it's marginally sharper in the corners than the 17, you won't see them when it's mounted on a 1D.

If you were using a ff camera, I'd still recommend the 17 as the first one to get - you can achieve 120 degree panoramas without moving the camera. In spite of the "loss of quality" I find images with the 1.4x Mk III to be more than acceptable.

Unless you have superhuman eyes, accurate focusing requires you use live view - I suggest you invest in a Zacuto 3x loupe and the clip-on frame for the LCD.

my vote would be 24mm TS

17mm TS is fine but even on 1.6X crop there is wild distortion (stretching) in the direction of a shift when shifting the lens fully. This shouldn't be a surprise and is probably controllable in post, but my experience has been that longer length TS-E lenses exhibit less of this (as they should). Still, an amazing lens, with amazing close focus capabilities. If I had a full frame camera at the time, I would have bought the 24mm - although I believe the price is down slightly to $2K since the 2009 launch, while the 17mm price hasn't budged off $2300 (or so, it may have launched at $2400). Aside from that, the 24mm doesn't have the bulging front element and is slightly faster aperture. My next lens in this FL range is probably going to be an AF prime though - after the 17mm I don't feel the need to get the 24mm to complement it.