Which Lens - 21/2.8 ZE or 24/3.5 TSE II?

So I'm inspired by cccc as well as to commemorate my 501st post to begin this thread.

Right now I see 2/3 stops faster and larger FOV but the TSE can be shifted and the resulting pictures stitched to make a larger FOV. Plus seeing some of the wonderful pictures already taken and the test shots over at TDP, seems like these two might be two big competitors.

Anyone deciding between the two? I know I am! Anyone gonna get both?

Thoughts please!

I've been eyeing the TS-E myself. It looks like it's pretty much the cream of Canon wide angle.

Yup! Being able to change the shift and tilt axes without having to unscrew the thing is a big plus over the 1st generation. Plus the new optics. Yay for aspherical elements! I'm excited for when the updates come to the 45 and 90 too.

TS-E definitely (the tilt/shift function would make up for any IQ differences for me, if the 24/TS-E II was below the Zeiss).

I would actually have the TS-E for slow manual focus shots and the Zeiss 28/2 for low light wide shots

So it sounds like the 24 would be even slower in use than the 21 since it'll take more time and thought to use the tilt and shift and manual focusing whereas the 21 can only be manually focused, thus could be faster in it's use for someone on the go.

I think they'd both require the same amount of effort being used as just static primes. The TS-E has the added efforts of course if you want to use tilt or shift. Also, the Zeiss is faster glass, so I guess it depends on what your needs are.

I frankly don't see any advantage in using a T&S lens in my photography.
Those lenses were designed for the architecture only (mostly interiors)
and suddenly because Canon just released a couple of good ones,
people are starting to talk about them as every day lenses...
Plus 24mm is not wide enough for a wide landscape lens to me.
I'd pick the 17 over the 24, but you can't put filters on it, so it's useless to me.

The 24 TSE II is the first "perfect" WA I have ever used. It is sharp to the edge on FF from wide open, no CA at all, lets you define the focus place, and lets you shift in a pinch. Taken all together, this lens is just beyond words. If you need more FOV, stitch two shots side by side, and it looks like a 15mm lens on FF - plus you get 42MP (at 4:3) for your effort. I never thought I would shift as much as I have (shifting becomes something akin to zooming, only in the X<->Y axis rather than Z). As a walkaround lens for a vacation goes, I can think of none better. If the Zeiss is cheaper, or you need a smaller lens, sure... but if money is no issue, get the 24. Neither has AF, so either lens will take time if you want to get the pictures done right (dropping into LV really helps).

Todd is correct there is no need to tilt or shift. You can just use it as a plain old MF 24mm lens. I actually would be tempted to pick up the Zeiss as well but it's a little hard to justify considering all the other things I would like to get. I would really use it for landscapes and I can accomplish that with the 24TSE although a little extra work would be involved if I need wider than 24mm. The Zeiss looks like a sweet lens but I the tilt-shift function is very handy for architecture and some more creative shots which is why I went the TSE instead of waiting for the Zeiss.

snowboarder wrote in post #8915376
I frankly don't see any advantage in using a T&S lens in my photography.

I thought the same until I got the 24 TS-E, and that is the Mk I. The Mk II is in another league. I shoot nothing but landscapes with it...

Yeah I have the 24mm T/S II lens. Its a great lens but whenever I see pics taken with the CZ21 they have a certain bite to them. Im trying desperately not to pull the trigger on one also... convince me Im wasting my money! Please!!!

Finally got around to pitting the ZE 21mm to the 24mm T/SII. Spent most the day working different shots and scenarios. I will make a final call after printing a 30x20 inch of both but so far I think its safe to say the CZ21 is no longer the king!

danielsan2222 wrote in post #8915463
Todd is correct there is no need to tilt or shift. You can just use it as a plain old MF 24mm lens. I actually would be tempted to pick up the Zeiss as well but it's a little hard to justify considering all the other things I would like to get. I would really use it for landscapes and I can accomplish that with the 24TSE although a little extra work would be involved if I need wider than 24mm. The Zeiss looks like a sweet lens but I the tilt-shift function is very handy for architecture and some more creative shots which is why I went the TSE instead of waiting for the Zeiss.

I find that both shift and tilt can be useful.

Tilt is very useful for landscapes which feature close and and far subjects requiring maximum depth of field. If a scene requires f/22 we know that at this aperture the lens will experience diffraction. By using the Scheimpflug technique the lens can be set to more optimal IQ and still get the depth of field required. On a wide angle it doesn't take much tilt to gain a lot of depth of field.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Scheimpflug_pri​nciple

I found shift to be useful for handheld. I am 6'5" and a wide angle lens leveled will capture as much ceiling as wall space. If I shift the lens down I can compensate for this. If a person is 5'2" then can shift up to compensate. Shift is also useful for eliminating distractions.

I'd be an easy choice to me, the TSE all the way.

photomadnz wrote in post #8970573
Finally got around to pitting the ZE 21mm to the 24mm T/SII. Spent most the day working different shots and scenarios. I will make a final call after printing a 30x20 inch of both but so far I think its safe to say the CZ21 is no longer the king!

Looking forward to your results.

Kind regards, Wim