Which TS-E lens combination?

Hi,

I'm landscape photographer. Currently I have TS-E 24mm II and I like it.

But sometimes I need more wide angle to get "dramatic" perspective. And sometimes I like architecture photography.

Due to flexibelity I'm planning to get a zoom (16-35 f/4 or 17-40 f/4)
but I wonder if TS-E 24mm makes sense?

Maybe it makes more sense if I replace my TS-E with TS-E 17mm version,
because for me it seems, that the TS-E 17mm is more "unique" especially
in the perspective (and with shifting I'd get more picture...) but I like
the natural perspective of 24mm version ... but I have the UWW zoom ...

Hm?

What do you think so? Or should I get TS-E 17 + keep the TS-E 24
and forget the zoom ...

Difficult to decide, uh!

I have both the TS-E's and haven't used my 16-35 f/2.8L II for a long while.

I think the TS-E's will serve you very well for landscape / architecture photography because auto focus is not a requirement, and they are both very sharp.

-alex

Heya,

Based on what you shoot, I think there's plenty of merit to having both the 17mm and 24mm TSE's, over a zoom. The wider you go, the even more dramatic that TSE can do work, where as with just a standard 16mm or 17mm, you just end up with whatever it bends.

Very best,

You can also add a 1.4 TC to the 17 TS-E lens which makes it a 23.8mm lens. In that case you have both a 17 and 24 TS-E in one lens.

If I would add a second lens I would personally go with the 16-35/4.0 IS. Really sharp and it has a great range with IS.

Bonbridge wrote in post #17288256
You can also add a 1.4 TC to the 17 TS-E lens which makes it a 23.8mm lens. In that case you have both a 17 and 24 TS-E in one lens.

If I would add a second lens I would personally go with the 16-35/4.0 IS. Really sharp and it has a great range with IS.

Had I not tried this I would have doubted that the quality would be okay, but in my experience it really does work, and image degradation was hardly a factor. Obviously not as good as the TS-E 24, but pretty good all the same.

The TS-E 17 is certainly a gem.

The TS-E 17mm is an expensive lens. Why don't you rent it and the zoom you'd prefer (I go 16-35 over 17-40), and see which will suit you better?

The ts-e17 is flat out stunning, I have it, along with the ts-e24ii. I've yet to try it with the tc2iii, but intend on doing so. If it works well then the 24 goes away. If you go the 17 route you'll need to come up with a filter holder, options are available.

The resolving ability and flare control of the 17 are amazing, along with the rendering.

Apfelbeisser wrote in post #17287453
Hi,

I'm landscape photographer. Currently I have TS-E 24mm II and I like it.

But sometimes I need more wide angle to get "dramatic" perspective. And sometimes I like architecture photography.

Due to flexibelity I'm planning to get a zoom (16-35 f/4 or 17-40 f/4)
but I wonder if TS-E 24mm makes sense?

Maybe it makes more sense if I replace my TS-E with TS-E 17mm version,
because for me it seems, that the TS-E 17mm is more "unique" especially
in the perspective (and with shifting I'd get more picture...) but I like
the natural perspective of 24mm version ... but I have the UWW zoom ...

Hm?

What do you think so? Or should I get TS-E 17 + keep the TS-E 24
and forget the zoom ...

Difficult to decide, uh!

I have the TSE 17mm and the and the TSE 24mm MK 1
Both are excellent lenses .

The only UWA lens I own is a EF-S 10 22 mm And I prefer the TSE's better.
Farmer

I was undecided between the TS-E 17 and 24, I ended up with the TS-E 17 and the Zeiss 21, loving the combo

I own the24mm TSE II too, and also want to havemore flexibility to make more dramatic perspective photos. For that i have the 16-35 2.8 which makes my combo perfect to me. The only thing i would love more would be to have a sharper 16-35mm lens but since i need 2.8 its my only choice at the moment..