TS-E 17mm instead of 16-35mm or 17-40mm

I'm debating about purchasing a wide angle lens. I've been thinking about a tilt shift for quite awhile but I can't quite get over the cost and the vulnerability of the TS-E 17mm. I've pretty much ruled out getting the 16-35mm due to the cost and weight. I travel a lot. Also I've heard the 17-40mm is as good as or better than the 16-35mm when stopped down. This leaves the 17-40mm and the TS-E 17mm in competition. One thought in favour of getting the prime is that I would likely only use the 17-40mm at the 17mm focal length. Having the option to zoom is nice but I have the 24-70 for that and a second body.

So it basically boils down to these 2 options unless I see some fantastic reason to get the 16-35mm.

TS-E 17mm Pros: Awesome IQ, huge creative prospects with the tilt-shift
Cons: Expensive, front element is vulnerable, no zoom

17-40mm Pros: cheaper, zoom ability, can use common filters, lightweight.
Cons: don't need/use the 18-23mm range,

If I get the TS-E 17mm, it would be used in "like new" condition for $2200. 17-40mm is $800 new which is very attractive.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for your ideas.

As long as your ok with manual focus. I have the 90mm TSE for product so I don't use it for anything else yet, but most everything I read is you need a tripod to use the tilt shift features, but if you use if for walking around or hand held and you want to manual focus instead of zoom I would say get it.

That is a huge consideration. I was thinking about getting the 17 tse as well but after considering that basically every shot needs a tripod and manual focus I opted for the 17-40mm. But to appease my ultra wide and creative drives I'm picking up a 15mm fisheye too!

I didn't catch what kind of photography you plan on doing. The 17 TSE is an incredible lens and a delight to use, when you have time to set up and manually focus & adjust your tilt or swing. I don't find the 16-35 II to be much different in carry weight (1.4 pounds vs 1.8 pounds on the TSE), and really like the fact that it is weather resistant (as is the 17-40).

Where my 16-35 really shines for me is wide open f/2.8 at all focal lengths on FF, and I use it more than any of the other "wide" lenses, including aircraft interiors. I can appreciate the price difference tho!

Good luck with your search!

Stan_Fox wrote in post #14183280
I didn't catch what kind of photography you plan on doing.

I'm not a fan of architectural photography as I know a lot of the people who use this lens are. I would probably use it very occasionally for that purpose. I would likely be using it more for travel and landscapes. I've used a 17mm before while travelling for street photography and landscapes and found a number of instances where I could really isolate the subject in an unusual way with the tilt shift. I rented the TS-E 24mm a little while ago and found it was a fun lens to use and did what I wanted it to do however the learning curve was steep and I found it wasn't wide enough for my liking.

bzollinger wrote in post #14183206
That is a huge consideration. I was thinking about getting the 17 tse as well but after considering that basically every shot needs a tripod and manual focus I opted for the 17-40mm. But to appease my ultra wide and creative drives I'm picking up a 15mm fisheye too!

I don't mind using a tripod so much. I usually carry one around with me anyways. I tried using the Rokinon 14mm fisheye and the Canon 14mm prime and found they weren't what I was looking for at that particular focal length. Mostly it was that for the price of those particular lenses, they weren't offering what I needed. If I didn't like the TS effects of the 17mm, this would be a very easy decision. I've seen what others have posted here and I've been inspired. The only "but" is that I like the current weight of my wallet.

I just ordered the 16-35. Thanks for this thread

I own the 16-35 and the 17 TS. A friend of mine has the 17-40 which I've tried a bit. Wide open, the 16-35 is noticeably sharper. I'm not where you've heard that the 17-40 is sharper wide open but that is far from what I've seen. Neither the 16-35 or 17-40 are terribly sharp in the corners and from what I've seen, the 17-40 doesn't even look that great at f8.

I spent the day with the 17TS and found it a bit challenging as a walk around lens for the following reasons. First, I was concerned with the bulging lens that I replaced the lens cap after almost every shot. I don't use lens caps on any of my lenses because I use UV filters and always used a hood. Secondly, the manual focus was a tad of a problem although towards the end of the day, I got used to it. The third one is a plus and a minus. This lens really makes you think of your shots technically (I assume one usually thinks a bit artistically). I had a traveller tripod with me all day and used it for all the building shots. The lens is totally useable handheld if you're just snapping photos.

If money isn't a huge problem, I'd recommend the 16-35 if you don't think you'll use the TS features. It's so much easier to use because of the lens element, etc.

If you don't mind manual focus, care a lot about corner sharpness and think you might do some architectural photography, then go for the 17mm.

The only reason I can think of for getting the 17-40 is cost.

^^ After reading hundreds of posts about the 16-35mm vs. the 17-40mm this is one of the few that say the 17-40 isn't sharp. This makes me think that the copy you were using wasn't a good example of the majority.

You do make some good points about the pros and cons of the 16-35 and 17 ts-e.

My own insight into conventional vs. shift lens...I quickly discovered, during my first trip to Europe, than 74 degree AOV was insufficient for me (28mm FF, 18mm APS-C), so I sold the 28mm lens and bought 24mm. On the next trip to Europe, I found that 84 degree AOV (24mm FF, 15mm APS-C) was fully satisfactory for narrow European streets. Later, I bought a 24mm Olympus shift lens, and I made the bold move during a later trip to Europe to bring only the Oly 24mm shift lens and no other lenses. I discovered that to be a highly satisfying trip, photographically, even though it was slower than my 24mm f/2 fixed focal length lens!

So I think that 17mm TSE would be quite satisfactory to have, in lieu of the 17-40mm. As for vulnerability of the protruding front element, my 24mm shift Oly lens has a similar front, and you do need to be a bit more careful,

It looks like the Olympus has some petals to protect the front element. The Canon has no such protection.

I'm visiting Naples for three days starting Monday and I'm torn on whether to bring the 16-35 or the 17. I love the buildings in Italy so the 17 has advantages. Landscapes can benefit from a TS lens as well from what I've read. You clearly stated you don't care about architecture so the TS seems hard to justify. I purchases mine on impulse a couple of months back (knowing I was going to take it to Italy).

SunTsu wrote in post #14187497
It looks like the Olympus has some petals to protect the front element. The Canon has no such protection.

The petal is a hood (though not of much practical benefit for flare reduction!) and if you put that lens face down on a flat surface two petals touch the surface putting about 1mm between the glass and the surface. But from the side (rather than top/bottom) the glass is still quite exposed, and there is little to protect the glass from brushing against something which is not large and perfectly flat (which is most things!) like a forearm.

bzollinger wrote in post #14186901
^^ After reading hundreds of posts about the 16-35mm vs. the 17-40mm this is one of the few that say the 17-40 isn't sharp. This makes me think that the copy you were using wasn't a good example of the majority.

You do make some good points about the pros and cons of the 16-35 and 17 ts-e.

I just Googled "17-40 vs 16-35" and the first three links favored the 16-35. I've never heard the 17-40 so perhaps we're reading different feedback.

Youngback wrote in post #14182804
I'm debating about purchasing a wide angle lens. I've been thinking about a tilt shift for quite awhile but I can't quite get over the cost and the vulnerability of the TS-E 17mm. I've pretty much ruled out getting the 16-35mm due to the cost and weight. I travel a lot. Also I've heard the 17-40mm is as good as or better than the 16-35mm when stopped down. This leaves the 17-40mm and the TS-E 17mm in competition. One thought in favour of getting the prime is that I would likely only use the 17-40mm at the 17mm focal length. Having the option to zoom is nice but I have the 24-70 for that and a second body.

So it basically boils down to these 2 options unless I see some fantastic reason to get the 16-35mm.

TS-E 17mm Pros: Awesome IQ, huge creative prospects with the tilt-shift
Cons: Expensive, front element is vulnerable, no zoom

17-40mm Pros: cheaper, zoom ability, can use common filters, lightweight.
Cons: don't need/use the 18-23mm range,

If I get the TS-E 17mm, it would be used in "like new" condition for $2200. 17-40mm is $800 new which is very attractive.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for your ideas.

first off are you talkling about the 16-35L II or the original 16-35L which has not been manufactured for years? the former is a better lens than the 17-40L and much cheaper and wider than the 17mm TS.

for travel the zoom is a no brainer over a niche prime. imo, anyways.

ed rader

SunTsu wrote in post #14187675
I just Googled "17-40 vs 16-35" and the first three links favored the 16-35. I've never heard the 17-40 so perhaps we're reading different feedback.

That is strange. There are at least a half dozen threads right here on POTN saying that unless u need the 2.8 speed get the 17-40...