17TSE or 24TSEII

Plan A was to add a 5D2 or switch to 5D3 and get a 24tse as the primary quality landscape lens.

I shoot most of my landscapes with 17-55 at 17 on 7D, sometimes use my 10-20 (when 17 isnt wide enough) but it lacks quality IMO and isnt so sharp on the RHS and corners ( I could get a better UWA but not bothered if I go FF I will add 17-40L).

Now I am being tempted with a 17tse and it can work well on both crop and ff. I can tilt stitch for up to 8mm or so! Downsides is filters and f4 (no biggie there) - and tricky to use on flash bodies.

Not likely to be enough money for both... (for now!).

But I have seen results with the 1.4TC also which look impressive too! (23.6mm or so)

I have a TS-E 24 II and I use it both on 5D and 7D and the results are impressive. Many people, me included, debated at some stage whether to get the 17 or 24 mm. I went with 24 and it is 95% of times the best FL for me. I suspect 17 mm would have been a bit too wide for me most of times. I'm starting to believe that one TS-E is not enough.

24 II takes filters and has a conventional lens cap.

Shift-stitch is really handy.

I tested my 17 tse + 1.4x Mk3 against a friend's 24 tse Mk2. Mine was sharper - see the lens archive for the furore that created
It is quite easy to make an adapter that allows the 17 tse to accept Lee filters (4x4 and 4x6), so that doesn't really count as an issue.

Finally - I think you're mistaken over the maximum width - you can produce an image that's 60x24 mm or 48x36 mm (both sizes calculated for ff sensor.) It's incorrect to think of this as a 10 or 13 mm equivalent (but I'll admit that it is helpful to do so.) The image scale still corresponds to a 17mm lens so that you get resolution that is somewhat better than a 10 or 13mm lens would deliver.

Using a 1.6 crop, the maximum image dimensions are different - iirc roughly 46x15 mm and 39x22.5 mm. You need to make quite a few more images to overlap them properly.

noisejammer wrote in post #13735645
I tested my 17 tse + 1.4x Mk3 against a friend's 24 tse Mk2. Mine was sharper

I don't think so mate.

17 going against 24 II, maybe, but 17+TC, I find it hard to accept.

I own both but, the differences are of obvious when used. If I had to pick one it would be the 24 bcoz' it could take filters. Although, I'm in the middle of making a rig for my 17 TS so it can take filters.

Rob, just an fyi. The only problem you'll encounter with your 7D and a TS lens is shifting up. It will hit the pop up flash thingy. Know what I mean?

actprivate wrote in post #13735745
I don't think so mate.

17 going against 24 II, maybe, but 17+TC, I find it hard to accept.

Could be more the user of the 24 than the lens.

Every reliable source I've seen has the 24TSEII as the sharpest Canon lens they have ever touched.

Numenorean wrote in post #13737368
Could be more the user of the 24 than the lens.

Um... no - with respect, I think I did this test with reasonable care and based on the accepted wisdon, was quite (read very) surprised at the result.

Technique - The camera was mounted on a heavy tripod and ballhead. I used magnified live view and a 3x loupe to focus, I released the shutter from MLU using a cable. The comparison was done at f/8.

Test 1 - I focused at the centre on a glint, shot 3 images (refocusing each time) and compared the best. Result they were essentially indistinguishable.

Test 2 - I then attempted to compensate for field curvature - I focused a corner of the frame on a glint, shot 3 images (refocusing each time) and compared the best. Result was that the 17+1.4 Mk3 was obviously sharper.

My conclusion was that since I usually use TS-E lenses at f/8 or f/11, the TS-E 17 + 1.4x Mk3 is a more than adequate alternative for me.... I make no comment on whether it's good enough for anybody else...

Caveats
1. It was one 17+1.4 tested against a borrowed 24 Mk2.
2. The light was changing - it happens
3. The centre of the field was about 1.5 - 2 km away.
4. I only checked one corner - time and light constraints.