David Arbogast wrote in post #18657458
I always regarded the 24mm as my preferred tilt-shift unless I just had to shoot wider (extremely limited space). Optically the 24mm is totally superior (sharper, less flare issues, less CA) and visually it produces more pleasing renditions of architecture. Also bear in mind that the shift function means you can capture things at 24mm that you might otherwise need a 16mm standard lens for. And, of course, much easier to pop on a filter on the 24mm.
OTOH, if you go with the 17mm you can turn it into a 24mm by adding a 1.4x TC. But it comes at a cost as it’s making an already less sharp lens even less sharp.
Although you need to to go with your own sense of what you need, I’m going to give this my strong recommendation: start with the 24mm and add the 17mm later if you can. Both would be ideal for you imo.
But wait, there’s a possible glitch to consider: you need a really well-aligned metabones for the 24mm to work best on the a7 series cameras and it’s my understanding that the 17mm is less sensitive to adapter alignment issues. Eddie had disastrous problems with the TS-E 24mm, but I have a well-aligned Metabones IV adapter and have had no major issues with the 24mm on my a7R II.
So my final suggestion is get the TS-E 24mm and if you have any adapter issues I can mail you my adapter and see if it works any better.
I always regarded the 24mm as my preferred tilt-shift unless I just had to shoot wider (extremely limited space). Optically the 24mm is totally superior (sharper, less flare issues, less CA) and visually it produces more pleasing renditions of architecture. Also bear in mind that the shift function means you can capture things at 24mm that you might otherwise need a 16mm standard lens for. And, of course, much easier to pop on a filter on the 24mm.
OTOH, if you go with the 17mm you can turn it into a 24mm by adding a 1.4x TC. But it comes at a cost as it’s making an already less sharp lens even less sharp.
Although you need to to go with your own sense of what you need, I’m going to give this my strong recommendation: start with the 24mm and add the 17mm later if you can. Both would be ideal for you imo.
But wait, there’s a possible glitch to consider: you need a really well-aligned metabones for the 24mm to work best on the a7 series cameras and it’s my understanding that the 17mm is less sensitive to adapter alignment issues. Eddie had disastrous problems with the TS-E 24mm, but I have a well-aligned Metabones IV adapter and have had no major issues with the 24mm on my a7R II.
So my final suggestion is get the TS-E 24mm and if you have any adapter issues I can mail you my adapter and see if it works any better.
David Arbogast wrote in post #18657458
I always regarded the 24mm as my preferred tilt-shift unless I just had to shoot wider (extremely limited space). Optically the 24mm is totally superior (sharper, less flare issues, less CA) and visually it produces more pleasing renditions of architecture. Also bear in mind that the shift function means you can capture things at 24mm that you might otherwise need a 16mm standard lens for. And, of course, much easier to pop on a filter on the 24mm.
OTOH, if you go with the 17mm you can turn it into a 24mm by adding a 1.4x TC. But it comes at a cost as it’s making an already less sharp lens even less sharp.
Although you need to to go with your own sense of what you need, I’m going to give this my strong recommendation: start with the 24mm and add the 17mm later if you can. Both would be ideal for you imo.
But wait, there’s a possible glitch to consider: you need a really well-aligned metabones for the 24mm to work best on the a7 series cameras and it’s my understanding that the 17mm is less sensitive to adapter alignment issues. Eddie had disastrous problems with the TS-E 24mm, but I have a well-aligned Metabones IV adapter and have had no major issues with the 24mm on my a7R II.
So my final suggestion is get the TS-E 24mm and if you have any adapter issues I can mail you my adapter and see if it works any better.
I always regarded the 24mm as my preferred tilt-shift unless I just had to shoot wider (extremely limited space). Optically the 24mm is totally superior (sharper, less flare issues, less CA) and visually it produces more pleasing renditions of architecture. Also bear in mind that the shift function means you can capture things at 24mm that you might otherwise need a 16mm standard lens for. And, of course, much easier to pop on a filter on the 24mm.
OTOH, if you go with the 17mm you can turn it into a 24mm by adding a 1.4x TC. But it comes at a cost as it’s making an already less sharp lens even less sharp.
Although you need to to go with your own sense of what you need, I’m going to give this my strong recommendation: start with the 24mm and add the 17mm later if you can. Both would be ideal for you imo.
But wait, there’s a possible glitch to consider: you need a really well-aligned metabones for the 24mm to work best on the a7 series cameras and it’s my understanding that the 17mm is less sensitive to adapter alignment issues. Eddie had disastrous problems with the TS-E 24mm, but I have a well-aligned Metabones IV adapter and have had no major issues with the 24mm on my a7R II.
So my final suggestion is get the TS-E 24mm and if you have any adapter issues I can mail you my adapter and see if it works any better.
Agree with David here, with the shift function on the 24 from memory a 3 shot pano gives equivalent fov as a 10mm Lens (memory a bit foggy but it’s in that range). I always favoured that one but never tried the 17. Owned the 24 twice. As David said, I had a major issue with alignment of my metabones and ended up selling the lens. I sometimes consider buying another but the alignment thing always puts me off
Lesson learned there 
