EF 14 F2.8 II vs TS-E 17 mm - mostly for landscape

[stefano]

Greetings everybody!

I have been considering a new super wide for my 5D mk II to replace/augment my 16-35 2.8, which does not do justice to the 21 Mpix sensor. I am primarily interested in landscape photography, and I am often caught capturing panoramics with my cameras on a RRS pano setup.

I have long been eyeing the 14/2.8 II as an example of a crisp super wide, but my purchasing plans have been put on hold with the appearance of the 17 TS. Either focal lenght would be satisfctory for my super wide needs.

My dilemma is quality versus flexibility: I currently own a 24/3.5 TS-E (old style) and I have used it often in my landscape shots. If the 17mm has comparable quality to the 14 II my choice would fall on the TS lens for it's greater flexibility in composition and control on focus, but optical quality across the frame is even more important to me.

I have not been able to find a 17 TS-E at my normal pro camera shops, so I am hoping to hear from people who had a chance to shoot with it, and possibly compare it to the 14/2.8 II. Again, optical quality is my main concern. Wide aperture is not a deal maker or breaker when shooting from a tripod for me.

Any experiences or advice?

Thanks,

Stefano Lassini

[Josh-H]

Greetings everybody!

I have been considering a new super wide for my 5D mk II to replace/augment my 16-35 2.8, which does not do justice to the 21 Mpix sensor. I am primarily interested in landscape photography, and I am often caught capturing panoramics with my cameras on a RRS pano setup.

I have long been eyeing the 14/2.8 II as an example of a crisp super wide, but my purchasing plans have been put on hold with the appearance of the 17 TS. Either focal lenght would be satisfctory for my super wide needs.

My dilemma is quality versus flexibility: I currently own a 24/3.5 TS-E (old style) and I have used it often in my landscape shots. If the 17mm has comparable quality to the 14 II my choice would fall on the TS lens for it's greater flexibility in composition and control on focus, but optical quality across the frame is even more important to me.

I have not been able to find a 17 TS-E at my normal pro camera shops, so I am hoping to hear from people who had a chance to shoot with it, and possibly compare it to the 14/2.8 II. Again, optical quality is my main concern. Wide aperture is not a deal maker or breaker when shooting from a tripod for me.

Any experiences or advice?

Thanks,

Stefano Lassini

The 17mm TSE hasnt been officially released as yet - should be early June according to the grape vine.

I am in the market for either the 14mm MKII or the 17mm TSE as well - If the 17mm TSE lives up to its MTF and you dont mind manual focus, then I think it will be the better choice. But.. need to test one - so hurry up Canon!  

[stefano]

The 17mm TSE hasnt been officially released as yet - should be early June according to the grape vine.

I am in the market for either the 14mm MKII or the 17mm TSE as well - If the 17mm TSE lives up to its MTF and you dont mind manual focus, then I think it will be the better choice. But.. need to test one - so hurry up Canon!

Josh,

thanks for the reply, I did not realize that the 17 TS-E was not on the streets yet! That would explain it not being on the shelf at my usual retailer, who normally has just about anything Canon makes! Indeed, Canon, Hurry up!
Manual focus won't be a problem, I routinely use MF with my 24 TS-E and with my 100 Macro.

I'll search for published MTF plots for the 17 - I am sure that will add another dimension to the wait! Looking forward to test the 17 and the 14 II side by side, and to hear from others.

Stefano

[Harold Clark]

Josh,

thanks for the reply, I did not realize that the 17 TS-E was not on the streets yet! That would explain it not being on the shelf at my usual retailer, who normally has just about anything Canon makes! Indeed, Canon, Hurry up!
Manual focus won't be a problem, I routinely use MF with my 24 TS-E and with my 100 Macro.

I'll search for published MTF plots for the 17 - I am sure that will add another dimension to the wait! Looking forward to test the 17 and the 14 II side by side, and to hear from others.

Stefano

I did a short test of the 17TSE last month and was very impressed at the results: perfectly straight lines, no vignetting and much better over all then my 24TSE.

[stefano]

I did a short test of the 17TSE last month and was very impressed at the results: perfectly straight lines, no vignetting and much better over all then my 24TSE.

Harold,

Thanks for the insight. Any ideas of how it compares to the 14/2.8 II in its nominal untilted/unshifted configuration? All the internet buzz has the 17 TS-E as the new standard for wide angle 35 mm lenses... might need to budget an extra $500

[KevinA]

Harold,

Thanks for the insight. Any ideas of how it compares to the 14/2.8 II in its nominal untilted/unshifted configuration? All the internet buzz has the 17 TS-E as the new standard for wide angle 35 mm lenses... might need to budget an extra $500

Many years ago I had a shift lens on a Nikon F2s, I used the shift all the time it was a very useful thing to have for most types of photography not just buildings. Being able to shift composition a bit this way or that was a real bonus. I would think in landscape photography on a tripod being able to cut down on sky or foreground  without tilting a very wide lens and leaning trees over would become an appreciable asset and you would wonder how you did without it. My opinion is I would rather have either of the T/S than a plain 'ol superwide.

Kevin.

[stefano]

Many years ago I had a shift lens on a Nikon F2s, I used the shift all the time it was a very useful thing to have for most types of photography not just buildings. Being able to shift composition a bit this way or that was a real bonus. I would think in landscape photography on a tripod being able to cut down on sky or foreground  without tilting a very wide lens and leaning trees over would become an appreciable asset and you would wonder how you did without it. My opinion is I would rather have either of the T/S than a plain 'ol superwide.

Kevin.

Kevin,

I completely agree with the TS advantages - I currently shoot with a 24 TS-E (old style) and love the flexibility of composing the image as I want to see it without having to crop the sky or morph the perspective in photoshop.
Having recently bought a 5D mk II I have been faced with the mediocre quality of my 16-35/2.8, which was maybe OK on my original 5D but definitely does not do justice to the denser sensor. I have thus been looking for a top quality, ultra wide prime lens to add to my kit, and wanted some comparison of the image quality of the two, without realising that the 17 was not yet widely available. From the available info it looks like the quality of the 17 will be on par or better than the quality of the 14 II, which would indeed make the 17 TS-E into a dream lens (until something better comes about...  )


Thanks

Stefano

[JeffKohn]

My preference would be for a 17mm T/S over a 14mm prime, personally. Not just because of the added flexiblity of tilt and shift, but because it's a more useful focal length for full-frame DSLR's. There's a pretty big difference in field of view between 14mm and 17mm; did you ever find yourself wishing you had something wider than the 16-35? How often? You might want to go through some of your previous images and see which lens would actually get more use for you based on the FOV's you typically shoot. Even if the 14mm were sharper, that doesn't do you much good if end up cropping every shot because the lens is too wide. And since you mention that you shoot panos regularly, even if you do occasionally have need for such a wide FOV you get get there by stitching.

[Luis Argerich]

I think that if the IQ is similar the TS17mm is a clear choice. The 17mm with shift is the widest rectilinear lens ever made by Canon. It is even wider than the Sigma 12-24 on a fullframe body.

Luigi

[stefano]

Jeff, Luigi,

I really think it will all come down to optical quality. The 17 mm would be wide enough for me - I have shot wider FoVs, but I am not afraid of stitching, and the shift in the 17 would make for relatively easy stitching even without setting up the pano head (I do this with the 24 - max shift and then rotate the lens through its eight stops for a super wide FoV in as little as 30 seconds).

The 14 II at this point would be my choice only if it were to be significantly better in IQ, which does not seem to be the case.

Thanks

Stefano

[Josh-H]

Jeff, Luigi,

I really think it will all come down to optical quality. The 17 mm would be wide enough for me - I have shot wider FoVs, but I am not afraid of stitching, and the shift in the 17 would make for relatively easy stitching even without setting up the pano head (I do this with the 24 - max shift and then rotate the lens through its eight stops for a super wide FoV in as little as 30 seconds).

The 14 II at this point would be my choice only if it were to be significantly better in IQ, which does not seem to be the case.

Thanks

Stefano

I have already decided on the 17mm TSE for me as the better option - the only thing that will sway my decision back to the 14mm is if the 17mm gets panned in image quality reviews - which seems highly unlikely given its MTF performance.

The only factor which may be a consideration for some people between these two lenses is going to be cost - the 17mm TSE is going to be a LOT more expensive.

Edit - Co-incidence maybee! My supplier in Victoria Australia just rang me to say Canon has contacted them and has their first shipment and that I should get mine this week - woot!  

[stever]

i think the tilt may be more useful than the shift, but the combination with the hi-res live view on the 5D2 really starts to push in to view camera territory in precision of composition and IQ, on the other hand i don't see the 14 as a landscape lens

[davewolfs]

If these lenses end up being awesome, it just might be enough to push me over the edge

[KevinA]

If these lenses end up being awesome, it just might be enough to push me over the edge

What mentally? it's Canons non awesome wides that make me wear the straight jacket in the rubber room!

Kevin.

[Josh-H]

What mentally? it's Canons non awesome wides that make me wear the straight jacket in the rubber room!

Kevin.

Check out the new 24mm F1.4L MKII - it changes the game when it comes to Canon being sharp at the wide end IMO. Hardly ever take it off the camera since I got it.

[davewolfs]

Samples posted:

http://www.pbase.com/georgh/17mm_tse_test

[Harold Clark]

Harold,

Thanks for the insight. Any ideas of how it compares to the 14/2.8 II in its nominal untilted/unshifted configuration? All the internet buzz has the 17 TS-E as the new standard for wide angle 35 mm lenses... might need to budget an extra $500

I haven't used the 14mm, but the 17 was much better than my 17-40 zoom which of course should be no surprise.

[Josh-H]

Samples posted:

http://www.pbase.com/georgh/17mm_tse_test

Looks great! Cant wait for mine to arrive!

[stefano]

Samples posted:

http://www.pbase.com/georgh/17mm_tse_test

Well... I'm sold! Finally a SHARP super wide from Canon, and TS-E! Better start saving every penny, this one will be hard to resist once it shows up on my dealer's shelves!

Thankf for posting the sample shots!

Stefano

[Tyler Mallory]

Those  previews are looking really good. Anybody seen any from the new 24? I'm on the fence about upgrading.