Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses  (Read 3736 times)

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« on: September 26, 2011, 05:24:21 am »

Contemplating a couple of Canon lenses, the 90TSE and 135/2L. I have a couple of questions

1. On the 135, I would be funding by selling 70-200f4IS and I do need something around 200. Would the 135 with the 1.4X (Mk 2, not 3) equal the zoom at 200 (well 189mm to be precise)? I would have thought so since could afford to stop down one stop to achieve same effective aperture.

2. Risk of 90 TSE being replaced by new lens like 24 TSE was. However, I don't think this lens needs replacing optically as seems to be considered one of Canon's most stellar lenses. Only reason Canon might bring out new version might be to update tilt/shift mechanism, but I would only want this for tilt, to control depth of field, not shift. Also, I would assume new one would be a lot more expensive.
Logged

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2011, 05:33:39 am »

Forgot to ask, on the 90TSE, can you use it with a)1.4X ;b) 12/25 extension tubes? (i.e is it also a viable macro lens with these additions)
Logged

AndrewKulin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
    • http://www.andrewkulin.com
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2011, 07:52:12 am »

You can download the user manuals from the Canon web-site and these will tell you if the lenses may be used with the extenders and/or extension tubes (that info typically found towards the end of the manual under Specifications).  Go to lens in question on Canon site and manuals can be downloaded from the support/download tabs

The extender (Mk III) , being newer release than the 90 TSE, would also have more up to date listing of lenses it would work with (manuals do not get updated I am pretty certain) so if a lens was not compatible with any extender available at the time of release of that lens, it may be now be, but that would only be shown in the extender manual.  For what it is worth, I have a 24 mm TSE Mk II and it is NOT compatible with tele-extenders.  My lens can be used with the 12 extension tube (not recommended for use with the 25 as lens to subject distance too short (17 mm TSE II cannot use either)), so my guess is the 12/25 would work with the 90 TSE (longer focal length) - but that will be confirmed in the manual.

Logged
[size=12p

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2011, 09:39:48 am »

I think this review has the answer to your 90mm TS-E questions:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-90mm-f-2.8-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

And here you can look at some comparison 70-200/4 vs 135/2 with 1.4x extender v2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

You will indeed get 189mm, but the image quality will not be as good. Those test charts make things look worse than it will appear in real pictures though, so it could be "good enough" for your needs.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 09:46:00 am by torger »
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2011, 10:11:32 am »

the 90ts works very well with the 1.4x extender (i think because it is such a simple design) and with extension tubes

i just tested the 1.4xiii and it is much better at the edges than the ii although not that much different in the center.  unlike my old ii, which required substantial micro-focus adjustment, the iii needed almost none

don't know about the 135, but with the 70-200 and 200 f2.8, i would use the 1.4xiii for prints to 17x25 with the 5D2 (but not larger, as would be possible without the extender) -- but at this enlargement the edges would be a problem with the 1.4xii
Logged

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2011, 11:18:47 am »

I think this review has the answer to your 90mm TS-E questions:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-90mm-f-2.8-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

And here you can look at some comparison 70-200/4 vs 135/2 with 1.4x extender v2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

You will indeed get 189mm, but the image quality will not be as good. Those test charts make things look worse than it will appear in real pictures though, so it could be "good enough" for your needs.

That's interesting. Although the 135/2 has a reputation as being one of the very sharpest lenses, unless I am getting the comparison the wrong way round, not only is the 70-200 at 200 sharper than the 135/1.4X at 189, but to my eyes the zoom at 135 looks better than prime. I would keep the zoom on the evidence of that.

The case for selling my 100IS to fund the 90TSE + extension tubes is more persuasive. Using the same comparison tool, wide open the 90 is as sharp as the 100 in the corners and the centre but less so in mid-frame (I suppose they mean edges). However, by 5.6, they seem about equal. Of course I don't know what happens close up but any slight differences seem much less important than the ability to manipulate depth of field e.g. in product shots and still-life, when the macro's IS is irrelevant.

 
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2011, 06:46:05 pm »

in testing several lenses over a period of time, i find that the 1.4x reduces resolution about 20%.  i found essentially no difference between my 200 f2.8 and the 2 copies of the 70-200 f4 that i tested.  i don't think there's that much resolution difference between the 135 and 200 so i would expect the 135 +1.4x to be down 15 - 20% on resolution compared to the 70-200.  the only reason to own the 135 is if you really need the aperture or really need a smaller black lens.  i originally purchased the 200 f2.8 instead of the 70-200 and have found it to be specialized and not so generally useful.

for manipulating perspective and depth of field, the 90TS is unique.  for real macro work it can give excellent results - with patience (and cooperative subjects).  i typically use a 500D then start adding and subtracting extension tubes to get the correct magnification then move it back and forth on a rail to get magnification and focus together - for small subjects you quickly realize the value of an internally focusing macro lens.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2011, 03:12:47 am »

That's interesting. Although the 135/2 has a reputation as being one of the very sharpest lenses, unless I am getting the comparison the wrong way round, not only is the 70-200 at 200 sharper than the 135/1.4X at 189, but to my eyes the zoom at 135 looks better than prime. I would keep the zoom on the evidence of that.

For 135 DSLRs the 70-200 zooms seems to be in a range that can be designed with really good optical characteristics.

When comparing crops on that site make sure you compare the same aperture, and apertures that are important for you. You should also consider how important corner sharpness is to you. If you shoot portraits or sports etc with short depth of field corner sharpness is generally not so important, since it is typically out of focus anyway. For large DOF landscape shots corner performance at f/8-f/11 is more important. The primes can have nicer bokeh too, and typically lets through a little bit more light at the same aperture due to less glass.

With the extender, I get to the same conclusion as you, that the 70-200 at 200mm outperforms the 135+1.4 solution from f/4 and up. With the version III extender the results are a bit closer.

If I compare crops without extender with the zoom set to 135mm I don't get the same result as you though, the prime lens looks considerably sharper. Are you sure you're comparing the same aperture or have not switched the results around? Sometimes the site is a bit slow at loading the crops too, so one might have changed the comparison settings but the site is still showing the previous images.
Logged

Mr S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2011, 03:58:19 am »

...For what it is worth, I have a 24 mm TSE Mk II and it is NOT compatible with tele-extenders.  My lens can be used with the 12 extension tube (not recommended for use with the 25 as lens to subject distance too short (17 mm TSE II cannot use either)), so my guess is the 12/25 would work with the 90 TSE (longer focal length) - but that will be confirmed in the manual.

FWIW: my 24mm tse II works perfectly with a 1.4 extender (II). It's a bit less sharp, and adds noticeable barrel distortion though.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 08:32:50 am by Mr S »
Logged

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2011, 05:09:39 am »

For 135 DSLRs the 70-200 zooms seems to be in a range that can be designed with really good optical characteristics.

When comparing crops on that site make sure you compare the same aperture, and apertures that are important for you. You should also consider how important corner sharpness is to you. If you shoot portraits or sports etc with short depth of field corner sharpness is generally not so important, since it is typically out of focus anyway. For large DOF landscape shots corner performance at f/8-f/11 is more important. The primes can have nicer bokeh too, and typically lets through a little bit more light at the same aperture due to less glass.

With the extender, I get to the same conclusion as you, that the 70-200 at 200mm outperforms the 135+1.4 solution from f/4 and up. With the version III extender the results are a bit closer.

If I compare crops without extender with the zoom set to 135mm I don't get the same result as you though, the prime lens looks considerably sharper. Are you sure you're comparing the same aperture or have not switched the results around? Sometimes the site is a bit slow at loading the crops too, so one might have changed the comparison settings but the site is still showing the previous images.

Yes you are right - checked that again. But I don't think I would rely on this solely because the refresh is a bit unpredictable on the machine I'm using at the moment - it also showed the 70-200 at 100mm f4 to be  sharper than the 100IS macro at same aperture. That I doubt.
One thing that is interesting is how much even a 1.4X converter degrades the image. I compared the 300/4 at 5.6 with the 70-200 zoom at 280/5.6 and the 300 is significantly better although in practice I've found the 70-200/1.4 produces quite printable images, especially stopped down. Wouldn't sell the 300 though - one of my favourite landscape lenses.

On a separate issue, will probably keep 100IS macro and rent the 90TSE when I need it. But will need extension tubes, which can't be rented with lens in UK. Are the Kenko tubes OK - much cheaper than Canon.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2011, 05:51:10 am »

One thing that is interesting is how much even a 1.4X converter degrades the image.

The worst case for a teleconverter is putting it on a very sharp lens, and using at largest possible aperture. Then image degradation is at its largest. But say putting a 1.4x III teleconverter on a 500/4 lens (which is less sharp than the 135 to start with) and shoot at f/8 gives rather nice results.
Logged

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2011, 11:39:55 am »

Yes you are right - checked that again. But I don't think I would rely on this solely because the refresh is a bit unpredictable on the machine I'm using at the moment - it also showed the 70-200 at 100mm f4 to be  sharper than the 100IS macro at same aperture. That I doubt.

That's not inconsistent with my own experience. My 70-200's (especially the f/2.8 IS II) have been just as good if not better than the 100 Macro and the 135L. They all fall into the category of "so darn good it doesn't matter" so I enjoyed them for their specific purposes. 135L when I wanted f/2 and a wonderful blown out background/bokeh, 100 macro when I needed close focus.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2011, 02:32:02 pm »

the 90 is a great lens, if and when they update it i'll not be in a hurry to change, my copy is very sharp, i have to alter my output sharpening compared to other lenses as it's a noticeably sharper. it will fill the frame with the lid of a 5x4 film box (remember those) at max magnification and works well with a 12mm extension tube including the use of movements.

i have a 40mm T-se too but it's not a patch on the 90 or 24 MKII

has anyone used the MKIII 1.4x with a 24 T-se II? im interested in this combo as an effective 33mm would replace the 40.
Logged

AndrewKulin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
    • http://www.andrewkulin.com
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2011, 01:22:31 am »

FWIW: my 24mm tse II works perfectly with a 1.4 extender (II). It's a bit less sharp, and adds noticeable barrel distortion though.

Well then, I may stand corrected.  I was basing my statement on what my lens manual stated.

As I have a 1.4 Mk II tele-extender, I might try it for myself and see if it works.
Logged
[size=12p

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2011, 05:51:54 am »

has anyone used the MKIII 1.4x with a 24 T-se II? im interested in this combo as an effective 33mm would replace the 40.

Haven't tested it myself, but here's crops from it. Mouseover will show without teleconverter. You can check the result with the version II teleconverter too (noticably worse result).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

From these crops it looks like the quality is OK with 1.4x, although it is noticably less good. Since you don't seem to get much chromatic aberrations and looks quite evenly less sharp, it probably responds well to deconvolution sharpening in post-processing. With the version II 1.4x there is significantly more aberrations.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 05:55:27 am by torger »
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Advice needed on a couple of Canon lenses
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2011, 11:10:57 am »

thanks, that's perfect
i can see the benefit of the MKIII extender over the II and the 34.6mm (24mkII+1.4mkIII) is better than the 45mm, it loses out slightly in the center but the mid and corner performance is much better. 35mm is also a more useful focal length for me to. i don't mind if there's any distortion from the extender as it will be centered and easy to fix.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up