My Canon 17mm TS-E Review

[California4Life]

Hi everyone... I put up a review on my blog... it's nothing groundbreaking but I compare it to the 17-40 and have a few samples...

I messed up on the first series of 100% crops when uploading and the 100% size cannot be viewed, but the rest of the samples click over to a full size view.

http://macdanzigphotography.wordpress.c ... e-17-40-l/

thanks for looking!

[Royce Howland]

Good notes, Mac, and I agree completely based on the preliminary results of my first bit of shooting with this lens last weekend. My favorite camera store has a generous return policy so I wasn't too worried about pawning a foot to afford the lens purchase price... I knew if I didn't like the images, I could return the lens and go reclaim the foot. But after taking a look at my first few images I'm sold 100% on the lens... even through the viewfinder and within live view, the high quality was pretty obvious. I guess you can just call me "hop along" now.

[California4Life]

Haha. Yeah, I am hobbling too, but at this point I think it's worth it... I got a great deal on it barely used and I'm confident if I "have to" sell it, I won't take a loss at all.. (as long as I can keep it mint)
I wish I had more time to really take some good examples with the lens, but I haven't had the time. Let me know if you really get to use it out in the field like Darwin has. I'd love to see your shots. It might be a little while before I can take mine anywhere cool.

[RServranckx]

Mac & Royce,

I'm starting to look into alternatives to my 17-40mm, which (as stated in Mac's blog) tends to have rather soft corners in certain conditions (aperture/focal length/focusing distance) on a full-frame camera.

Since you're both using the 17mm TS-E lens for landscape photography, I'm interested in hearing how you deal with not using a polarizer, GND, ND or other filters on this lens... Personaly, I simply cannot imagine not being able to use filters on my lenses. Because of this one issue, I'm much more inclined to consider the 24mm version.

I'll have a chance to test out a friend's 24mm TS-E Mk 1 - he's looking to sell his. I'll be closely looking at corner sharpness compared to my 17-40mm to see whether it's worth considering as a decent compromise between sharpness and cost. But man, those two new TS-E lenses make me drool...

[Royce Howland]

Rob, the 24mm would be a great choice as well, and I'm almost certainly going to end up with one in addition. (I've still got one foot. ) Though honestly between the Mk I and Mk II, I would really recommend the Mk II because the flexibility of the new rotating tilt & shift mechanism is amazing. I shoot back & forth between horizontal & vertical framing all the time, and need to flip from horizontal to vertical shift at the drop of a hat depending on what kind of perspective control and/or stitching I need for the composition. Tilt, of course, for normal purposes anyway, would usually be vertical... though I can see some artistic potential in having angled tilt. Nevertheless, the ability to quickly flip the axis of shift & tilt with respect to each other is crucial. The fixed relative tilt & shift is one of the biggest reasons I never went for the original 24mm TS-E. (Yes, I know the Mk I can be adjusted, but not mounted to the camera, in the field, in 2 seconds, with gloves on, and no tools!) I can't be positive enough about the mechanical aspect of the new design. (Though the optics are equally fantastic from what I see so far.)

Re: filters... it's just a compromise that has to be accepted. You know what kind of a filter shooter Darwin is and he has so far found the 17mm to be more useful without filters than he first expected. Personally the only filter I use is a circular polarizer and I definitely do miss it. But there are many circumstances where filters are merely beneficial, not necessary. I have always loathed the Canon 17-40mm and for some reason never bothered with the 16-35mm, so one of my heavy workhorse lenses has been the Sigma 12-24mm ultrawide zoom. It likewise has a bulbous front element and can't take any filters, so I've lived without in that case. (The same is true for anyone shooting the Nikon 14-24mm, which I'm also strongly considering obtaining.) I've made many, many compositions with the Sigma that do not suffer from the lack of polarization. Think of it as icing & cake... and the polarizer is not the cake.

I shoot ultrawide compositions a lot for landscapes and now for some architecture, and the first & foremost issue is can I even get the composition I want. The second issue for me is can I get a high enough level of IQ, and this is where the Sigma 12-24mm was letting me down. Though I love the flexibility of that zoom range, and despite its positive aspects like very controlled CA and rectilinearity, it just doesn't have the level of corner-to-corner sharpness I want to see in my 5D Mk II files. (Nor did it on my 5D, but I was willing to live with it at the time.) I consider the filter aspect a third ranking issue after the first 2. Though I know for many people it may rank higher, just as is the case with their dissatisfaction with the Sigma and Nikon ultrawide zooms.

Not trying to do a sell job here since Canon's TS-E lenses have always been something of a specialty series, and the 17mm variant is even more specialized. But for ultrawide shooters it is quite literally a unique tool that, in my mind, justifies its only significant limitation: not supporting filters. (Well, and having to use a piece of cardboard -- see Mac's blog entry.)

Mac, does this line up with your motivation as well?

[Royce Howland]

Mac, I hear ya about the lack of time. My "day job" has been overwhelming this year and I'm fighting to pick off the odd few hours in the field here or there. But I hope to have a couple of images from last weekend that I can work up shortly here. Shooting in the Rockies, the 17mm TS-E is a real performer.

[capecodfish]

thanks for the review mac
the appeal of having an excellently sharp 17mm on a full frame is sooo tantalizing, and both this and the new 24mm tse are definitely on my acquisition list...like rob i am a filter-user so i'll probably get the 24mm first so i don't have to go cold turkey right away.
one question for you that have it...how do you keep the front glass from getting scratched in your bag during transport? does it have a lens cover of any kind??
i really enjoyed your fisheye dusk at horseshoe bend too

[RServranckx]

Royce,

Thanks for the insight. I appreciate your input regarding the Mk I vs. the Mk II. I agree that the MkII is a vastly superior lens for a number of reasons... I want to give the Mk I a "fair test", although after a good chat with my wife (gotta love her!), she feels that it's probably "smarter" to get what I really want now (i.e. the MkII), rather than spending about $1000 on a "compromise" choice. Not yet sure what I'll do - it'll depend on my share of the company bonus!

Regarding the filterless 17mm vs. 24mm - I understand your situation... As I live in the Montreal area, things are very different for me: I do not have "grand landscapes" with beautiful mountains. So my need for filters is probably greater, as I need to be able to "create" a images using them. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but I think that my recent blog post "My Hot Shot – The River at Coteau-du-Lac" explains it... Without my filters, I'd never have made that image. Actually, the fact that the 24mm TS-2 requires 82mm filters makes me pause, as I'd not be able to use my Gold-n-Blue polarizer! (And no, that filter does not come in 82mm format).

Thanks,

Rob

[Gib Robinson]

FYI. For all those who own one or more lenses with bulbous front elements, below is a promising entry from the Canon Rumors website. Personally, I have been carrying a second WA lens that does take a polarizer. It's a lens I would happily leave at home.


Filtering Protruding Front Element Lenses
November 1st, 2009 | 27 Comments | Posted in Third Party Lenses

Eureka!
I am told that there is a high end filter company working on a solution to the issue of filtering protruding front elements on select lenses. The 2 lenses in most need of filters are Nikon’s 14-24 and Canon’s 17mm TS-E. The solution should be available sometime in 2010.

It sounds easy enough to do, but the issue is flare, cost and most importantly; ease of use.

The source couldn’t say which company at the moment, but it’s coming soon.

[California4Life]

Rob,
Royce pretty much echoes my sentiments. The filter issue is definitely a compromise, but it's one that has proven to be worth it for me (at least so far).
I found myself over-using my polarizer in many cases. When I saw the high number of pros shooting with Nikon's 14-24 and getting great results in all sorts of conditions, I began to wonder how much I really needed filters. Then, once I started achieving great results blending two exposures in PS using layers, I was convinced that a GND wasn't 100% necessary for me either... Finally, my experiences using my Sigma 15mm fisheye without filters really sealed the deal.
The one thing I am going to miss (and the main reason I am still keeping my 17-40) is the use of my 10-stop ND filter. I love being able to shoot 30-second-long exposures in broad daylight to show cloud movement, etc. That is just a compromise i'll have to deal with right now, but of course, the 17-40 will stay with me and be used in that case.


Royce,
Can't wait to see some shots of yours from the Rockies.


Marian,
Thanks for the kind words... Yes, the TS-E 17mm actually has a pretty nice hard cap that securely covers it during transport. Obviously, it's probably best to keep it on at all times, unless you're actually exposing.


Gib,
Let's hope this comes to fruition! I would hope that the design for these filters is cohesive to vignetting and flare control.

[Royce Howland]

I've just posted my first worked up composition shot using the 17mm TS-E, over in Landscapes. The lens matched or exceeded the high hopes I had. It's rare these days that I say that for a new Canon product. But this one on my Canon 5D Mk II purely rocks.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=165974

No 100% crops yet but I will try to get some time to pull a few together and post them. To do it justice would require comparison of a few combinations of aperture, shift, and tilt. But until then, my vote is big thumbs up on this lens.

[California4Life]

Part 2 is up on my blog now... (finally)

http://macdanzigphotography.wordpress.c ... ew-part-2/

It's not as detailed as I'd like it to be, but my daughter just had her first birthday this weekend and I have had hardly any time to shoot or write...