24mm TS-E I vs II

I am getting into Architectural photography more and more

feel I need a TS-E to show my work the best

I can get a 24mm TS-E version I for $1050
can get a version II for $1889

Would consider a 17mm TS-E if the price was right, but from what I understand the 24mm is superior in optical quality and the 17mm range is less necessary in my work, though, if price was not much different, and was convinced quality wasn't either, I would of course choose the 17mm

thanks all for the suggestion and the advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am presuming a FF body?
I have both 24 II and 17mm TSE and use them quite often for landscape shooting. They are both excellent image quality, you can't go wrong with either one. That should not be a deciding factor. The difference in focal length is significant, although by adding a 1.4x TC to either one, one can get a longer focal length without a major compromise in IQ. I did use a 24 TSE 1 for some time as well, and although the one I was borrowing was of high IQ for that model, its still a significant step lower in IQ compared to the version II. The version II has much less distortion, chromatic abberation and comma; pretty noticeable upon close examination. Also the newer models have a more flexible T/S mechanism, allowing independent movement of shift and tilt axis. With the version I, this requires removing 4 tiny screws and rotating the lens, something you will certainly not do in the field.

The 17 TSE is great for indoor architectural shots, as one is usually highly constrained in how much room there is to back up and get the essential subjects into the image. The 24 TSE II is probably a more useful focal length for outdoor captures of buildings and landscapes.
Mike K

Get the TS-E 24 II.

Get the TS-E 24 II.........and start saving for the TS-E 17.

Mike K wrote in post #16288576
I am presuming a FF body?
I have both 24 II and 17mm TSE and use them quite often for landscape shooting. They are both excellent image quality, you can't go wrong with either one. That should not be a deciding factor. The difference in focal length is significant, although by adding a 1.4x TC to either one, one can get a longer focal length without a major compromise in IQ. I did use a 24 TSE 1 for some time as well, and although the one I was borrowing was of high IQ for that model, its still a significant step lower in IQ compared to the version II. The version II has much less distortion, chromatic abberation and comma; pretty noticeable upon close examination. Also the newer models have a more flexible T/S mechanism, allowing independent movement of shift and tilt axis. With the version I, this requires removing 4 tiny screws and rotating the lens, something you will certainly not do in the field.

The 17 TSE is great for indoor architectural shots, as one is usually highly constrained in how much room there is to back up and get the essential subjects into the image. The 24 TSE II is probably a more useful focal length for outdoor captures of buildings and landscapes.
Mike K

thanks Mike!

I have a 1.4x TC already,

have heard that the 24mm was significantly better than the 17mm in IQ, so if the two are really more comparable than what I had previously thought then maybe I should go with the 17mm since already have the TC to go with it when needed.

thanks for the info on the version I 24mm TS-E, yep, not interested in removing any screws and such

and yes, I do have a FF, a 5D and 5D Mk III

I also have a 50D, so that too would be helpful perhaps in regards to the decision between the 17mm and 24 mm. Maybe Full frame indoors on the 17mm, and if needed can go to crop, and even crop + 1.4x TC for certain outdoor uses. What do you think?

powerslave wrote in post #16288580
Get the TS-E 24 II.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16288727
Get the TS-E 24 II.........and start saving for the TS-E 17.

thanks!

David, I can get the 17mm now if that is indeed the right choice
it might seem to be the best idea to most to just go with the 17mm if can afford it. However, I put up with lower quality IQ lenses in the past because I HAD to, now I try my best to only buy the best IQ lenses or not at all.

In other words, if the 17mm is great for WHAT it can do indoors, but suffers IQ wise compared to the 24mm then I want to know that now, not after I buy it.

Again, thanks all for the wonderful advice!

William

Liquid Dark wrote in post #16288747
have heard that the 24mm was significantly better than the 17mm in IQ,

You'll be comparing absolutely the best against absolutely awesome.

windpig wrote in post #16288883
You'll be comparing absolutely the best against absolutely awesome.

Windpig!

that is exactly the answer I needed!

you could not have made more sense or impression on me if you had tried

many many thanks!!!!!!

I have had the 24mm Mk1 and now have the Mk2,the Mk1 was good the Mk2 is a lot better.
I got my Mk2 used at a good price .if I had to pay full price as a hobbiest I could not justify the price difference BUT if I was going to earn my living with it then I would happily pay full price for the Mk2.
It really is awesome ,sorry but I cant compare it with the 17mm as I have never used one.

Just remember, buy either or both from a reseller that allows returns and you be the judge.

troutfisher wrote in post #16288944
I have had the 24mm Mk1 and now have the Mk2,the Mk1 was good the Mk2 is a lot better.
I got my Mk2 used at a good price .if I had to pay full price as a hobbiest I could not justify the price difference BUT if I was going to earn my living with it then I would happily pay full price for the Mk2.
It really is awesome ,sorry but I cant compare it with the 17mm as I have never used one.

thanks!

it seems that everyone who has had either updated lens is in love with it. Get just the most rave reviews and opinions on both. That is welcome to hear, so seems can't do wrong with either one. A comforting thought.

windpig wrote in post #16288946
Just remember, buy either or both from a reseller that allows returns and you be the judge.

will do

thanks!

Liquid Dark wrote in post #16288782
thanks!

David, I can get the 17mm now if that is indeed the right choice
it might seem to be the best idea to most to just go with the 17mm if can afford it. However, I put up with lower quality IQ lenses in the past because I HAD to, now I try my best to only buy the best IQ lenses or not at all.

In other words, if the 17mm is great for WHAT it can do indoors, but suffers IQ wise compared to the 24mm then I want to know that now, not after I buy it.

Again, thanks all for the wonderful advice!

William

IQ-wise they're both fantastic. The 24 II is better, but windpig's characterization is exactly they way I would put it. Putting the 1.4x on the 17mm absolutely works, but then you are going to lose a bit of sharpness; your IQ will suffer in comparison to the lens without the extender.

Making a recommendation is a real toughy for me. Compositionally and IQ-wise I prefer the 24. With respect to architecture, a 17mm lens is such a wide angle that some people are disturbed/annoyed by the "perspective distortion", whereas a 24mm view looks and feels better. I only shoot with the 17 when I can't pull my scene in with the 24 (small/tight rooms, buildings where you don't have room to pull the camera back, etc.) because the framing/composition is just going to look better. Problem is, I frequently find the 17mm useful.

I have shot shifted panos with the 24 to compensate for its narrower FOV, it's a nice workaround, but there are more limitations in doing that for architecture than for landscapes. For instance, if you're using the shift in the up/down direction to maintain vertical lines (the primary reason for having a tilt-shift for architecture), and you want to do a left-to-right pano, then you're out of luck.

If you can make an order from a retailer with an excellent return policy, then you can buy the lens you think is right for you and return it if you are disatisfied. For instance, you could order then 17mm and do your own tests with the 1.4x to see if you can live with the loss of sharpness.

What I did was start with the 24. If I knew then what I know now (from experience), I would have still started with the 24. But, it's a hard decision and I don't know if you can make a mistake either way.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Filters yet. Easier to find filters for the 24.

Unless I'm overlooking something, in which case please feel free to correct me.

As usual it ultimately comes down to budget. I picked up a good condition used 24 TS-E Mark I for only $750, which is well less than half the price of the Mark II. For that price, it gets the job done and allows me to afford one or two other lenses. Here are a few recent favs with the Mark I...

Three shot merged pano - Twin Lakes Viewpoint:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …g_photography/9​725601237/