Landscape lens..?

Madweasel wrote in post #14343581
I would have thought tilt would be more useful for wide landscapes than shift.

Shifted panoramas are pretty much one of the biggest reasons to get this lens for landscapes.

TaDa wrote in post #14343453
Zeiss 21 is awesome

+1
I have the Zeiss 21 and it is amazing. The moustache distortion is real and requires correction. In lightroom 4 it's not a problem with the lens profile correction.

Ricku wrote in post #14343637
Shifted panoramas are pretty much one of the biggest reasons to get this lens for landscapes.

Oh, ok. I was thinking of front to back sharpness. I didn't realise he was talking about stitching panoramas. To be honest, although I understand why a shift lens makes it easier, it's a very expensive way of doing it. I've done very successful stitches from non-shift lenses.

Madweasel wrote in post #14344165
Oh, ok. I was thinking of front to back sharpness. I didn't realise he was talking about stitching panoramas. To be honest, although I understand why a shift lens makes it easier, it's a very expensive way of doing it. I've done very successful stitches from non-shift lenses.

Actually I use it for reducing perspective distortion. I agree it's rather an expensive way of doing panoramas and it's also quite limited in the amount you can actually shift.

As far as perspective distortion is concerned, usually you are placing the horizon somewhere other than the center of the image and as soon as you point a wide angle lens up or down trees and other natural objects that should be straight are not not. Getting down low and angling the lens up or angling down to include the foreground creates a lot of distortion.

I think many people just get used to this, but it really started to bug me to the point where it was actually the main reason for getting the TS-E (sharpness second and tilt third).

I know it's even more important in architecture, but I pretty much always use shift for landscapes when using the TS-E.

Tilt can be useful, but only if the foreground it relatively low (if you have a tree in the foreground for instance, it does not work). Personally I'd rather have shift if I had to choose one.

http://compare.ebay.co​m …edPriceItemType​s&var=sbar

Ohhhh. Just saw this, although I don't know what adapters you might need or what is possible.

Anyway, JMO. In the 35mm range, I'd be looking for something like this if I could make it work and the optics were decent at f8+.

I guess the non-shift ones are really quite cheap though. I'd never considered these Zuiko lenses before.

ejenner wrote in post #14344520
...as soon as you point a wide angle lens up or down trees and other natural objects that should be straight are not...

Yes, I thought about trees, and I guess the effect is much stronger once you get to 17mm, hence your choice of lens. Just as well Canon has pushed the TS boundaries with that amazing lens! I could well imagine going for one myself if it wasn't so expensive, even though I'm well aware you get what you pay for. Maybe some day.

zeiss 15, 21, 28, 50, and 85 will get ya goin

Seriously though, take a look at the Zeiss 21 if you have the money. Such a shweeet lens. What I would call pure 'butter'

How is the corner sharpness of the Zeiss 21mm? Is it as good as Canon's TS-E lenses?

Ricku wrote in post #14345045
How is the corner sharpness of the Zeiss 21mm? Is it as good as Canon's TS-E lenses?

Look at the bottom right hand corner of this image. You'll notice a little metal rectangle

ejenner wrote in post #14344520
Actually I use it for reducing perspective distortion.

+1. Absolutely. Standard wide angles are great. However when you're close to the subjects, tall items will start to look like it's leaning backward. Only shifting can correct that without losing frame dimension.

TaDa wrote in post #14345065
Look at the bottom right hand corner of this image. You'll notice a little metal rectangle

Well that answers my question!

Darn.. I was all set for the TS-E 24, but now I dunno.

One could argue that a lens like the Zeiss 21 is easier and perhaps more fun to use. Hmm.

The TS-E is a great lens. The Zeiss cannot tilt nor shift. I also personally don't believe that any Canon glass can render an image on par with the Zeiss.

I sold my 21 ZE to fund my 70-200 II. After that, the new Canon 24L II was released and I decided to give it a try. Great optics and AF too. Few outings with the 24L, and it was sold to fund the re-purchase of the 21 ZE.

I'm lucky to have the 17 TS-E, Zeiss 21, the OM 24/2.8 and the Zeiss 28. All are really excellent although the Olympus is beginning to show it's age... they stopped being made about 30 years back and the flare control is not as good as the others. I sometimes play with the OM 16/4 (full frame fisheye) which is also quite a lot of fun.

The 17 TS-E takes the 1.4x Mk III converter really well so that it can do the job of a 24 mm tilt shift too. I did a careful comparison and my combination was sharper than my friend's 24 TS-E. I can't say whether this is representative but it was good enough to convince me that I did not want a 24 TS-E.

The Zeiss 21 has comparable sharpness to the 17 TS-E and both have excellent flare control. It is possible to fit 4x6 filters to both but my experience is that I get a lot of light bouncing around if I do this with the TS-E.

On the whole, my experience has been that a very wide lens can be something of a liability - you loose image scale and retaining detail makes focusing extremely critical. My general recommendation would be to work with something like a 24 mm. I would try the OM 24/2.8 and if it worksfor you, decide between a TS-E (take your pick) or a Zeiss 2/25. Squeezing the most out of either will require you to use magnified live view and a lcd loupe.