which is best: view camera vs ts-e lens vs 17mm + photoshop

[asf]

Jeffrey -

"I hate looking through a small viewfinder all day, I prefer to see the shot with 2 eyes (Hence the term View Camera, seen with 2 eyes)"

Live view on the Canon (5d2) lcd is excellent, and you can tether live view with Canon software.

"HUGE ISSUE:, no lateral shift in combination with vertical shift, yes you can shift T/S or PC lenses in a similar way but its not the same control"

Since you mentioned the SWA (of course about size, but you did include it and you do use it), that is rise/fall only, or shift only if you reverse it, so no combo possible. While I agree the combo possible on dslr pc lenses is limiting in comparison, the more I use it the more I learn to work within its limitations, and it's a rare situation that I need more than the canon offers.

"Working with a slower (however not bigger in the case of the Alpa SWA) camera will improve anyones work. More time spent with each shot will make it a better shot."

One can shoot any camera slowly, but one cannot shoot any camera quickly.

"CA/Purple fringing on the lenses, yes correctable but another step." "When needing something wider than 24 you'd need to do perspective correction. Now the 17TS is available which sounds great but was not available when I made my decisions. I cannot see spending the time or effort on site to correct perspective in order to fine tune whats in frame or out or to show it to the client."

The new 17 and 24 are game changers. If you haven't used them you should at least try and then judge. No fringing, no distortion. The 23 Rodenstock has massive distortion compared to the 17tse. Also the screen on the Canon is good enough to show the client. Canon does need to make a 32/35 tse, 65/70tse, and update the 45.

I use the Alpa Max/MFDB too and it creates the best files. The Schneider and Rodenstock lenses are superior, no doubt. But more and more my reasons for using the "bigger" system are purely emotional. I like the way the Alpa works, and I like the results. It's satisfying. I cannot say the same about the Canon, it doesn't have the feeling, and at first I hated it. But it works in most situations flawlessly.

I chose the Alpa before the 17 and new 24 were announced, before the 5d2 was announced even. I saw it and pulled out the credit card before it even crossed the counter at the shop. At the time there was no question how to go from 4x5 to digital. Now there is, and, no regrets, but I don't think I'd spend money the same way.

[Craig Lamson]

Why I choose Medium Format Digital over DSLR:

Emotional reasons:

I fell in love with photography after I began using a large format camera (4x5 & 8x10).
I never liked the proportion of 35mm, too panoramic for most of my work.
I hate looking through a small viewfinder all day, I prefer to see the shot with 2 eyes (Hence the term View Camera, seen with 2 eyes)
Working with a slower (however not bigger in the case of the Alpa SWA) camera will improve anyones work.  More time spent with each shot will make it a better shot.

Technical reasons:

35mm lenses (all SLR, MF too) have too much distortion, yes it can be corrected but it adds time and aggravation.
CA/Purple fringing on the lenses, yes correctable but another step.
Again for me wanting to crop the 2:3 aspect to 4:5 or 4:3 takes away resolution.
HUGE ISSUE:, no lateral shift in combination with vertical shift, yes you can shift T/S or PC lenses in a similar way but its not the same control
Image quality and sharpness of the P45+ with Schneider Lenses (+ one Rodnestock 23HR which does need distortion correction sometimes but is easy with Alpas new software.)
When needing something wider than 24 you'd need to do perspective correction.  Now the 17TS is available which sounds great but was not available when I made my decisions.  I cannot see spending the time or effort on site to correct perspective in order to fine tune whats in frame or out or to show it to the client.

These are just my reasons since the original poster was asking about why one system over the other I thought I'd share my experiences.   No judging here.  I do have a 5D system with PC and TS lenses that I use as back-up or second system for doing two shots at once, but I'd rather use the Leica M8 if I didn't need the perspective control.  Better lenses.  

Everyones workflow is different and whats important to them is also different.  If you never worked with 4x5, switching to MFD might seem very awkward if you're not used to the pre-visualization process required for view camera work.  "Seeing" the image often comes first in your mind and then is translated by choosing the right camera height and lens.

I must say at first I really missed the view camarea experience.  I really loved the big camera, the large groundglass and the movements.  If I had to guess I would say that at least 80% of my work was 4x5 and 35mm 1%.  Even the blad had a special feeling.  The process was deliberate, the medium unforgiving. (I shot reversal 95% of the time).  The wonder and sometimes downright terror of wating to see the results at the lab is missed, along with the time spent talking to my fellow photogs while waiting.  I don't miss a box full of cc filters, polaroid that was worthless for checking focus ( except for the negs from P/N film) and clients who took the film with the promise to fix the few things we just could not fix in camera but then failed ot do so.

The Betterlight scan back was an eyeopener in the world of digital but mostly worthless for my work.  The P20 was pretty cool too, but there was no wide which killed it as well.  

Then the 1Ds arrived and it changed the whole ballgame.  Sure I miss the old, but damn, the new has opened so many possibilities that just were not possible before. (or not without a lot of expense or trouble)  Truth be told I'm guessing I spend more time per image with a dslr than before with a view camera.  So much that sometime I need to call enough, we are changing things just for the sake of change, its  not making the image better!

It's a mind set, not the equipment....

[Carsten W]

The new 17 and 24 are game changers. If you haven't used them you should at least try and then judge. No fringing, no distortion.

You must have a really good copy of that 17, or some others have really bad ones. Here is one person's experience:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834707/2#7777728

Summary: significant CA, significant distortion, to the point where he now uses an adapted Nikon 14-24G and a 24 TS-E II.

[asf]

is this what you mean - "the TSE 17+1.4 TC produces quite a noticable amount of CA and distortion" ?

If so then, yes, in my testing the addition of the 1.4x produces unacceptable results. But that may have been the 1.4x I tested as RainerV on this forum finds the results of that combination more than acceptable. And there's a thread on get dpi forums with that exact combination comparing it to the new 24 tse II and it stands up very well. So I'm inclined to think the 1.4x is the culprit.

The arch forums at ASMP have only positive reviews of the 17tse. Stores can't get enough of them.  

So I don't think it's just mine that's a good copy.

Have you tried the lens or have any direct experience of a bad copy? Canon has many dogs and their QC is often suspect, but this is one lens almost without exception people are enamoured with.

[Carsten W]

Have you tried the lens or have any direct experience of a bad copy? Canon has many dogs and their QC is often suspect, but this is one lens almost without exception people are enamoured with.

No, I haven't tried it, but I have read both glowing and negative opinions on it, so I guess there is some QC at fault, perhaps less than some previous Canons, like the old 24 TS-E (which I have tried, and which wasn't super-sharp and had CA).

[rainer_v]

You must have a really good copy of that 17, or some others have really bad ones. Here is one person's experience:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834707/2#7777728

Summary: significant CA, significant distortion, to the point where he now uses an adapted Nikon 14-24G and a 24 TS-E II.

He writes about the 17tse together with the 1,4 extender. The extender itself creates some distortion as well as some ca ( although both easy correctable because it does not shift and is therefor symmetrical.
The 17tse shows à bit ca ( about two points correction on the Red-Green scale in LR).
distortion is very good,.
Same behavor than the 24tseII reg. CA. These two new lenses are both stunning .

[Carsten W]

He writes about the 17tse together with the 1,4 extender. The extender itself creates some distortion as well as some ca ( although both easy correctable because it does not shift and is therefor symmetrical.
The 17tse shows à bit ca ( about two points correction on the Red-Green scale in LR).
distortion is very good,.
Same behavor than the 24tseII reg. CA. These two new lenses are both stunning .

It seems I grabbed the wrong link. Still, it sounds like he sold the lens again and kept just the 14-24G and 24 TS-E II, so I guess he wasn't even happy with the 17 TS-E by itself. I have seen another couple of people who weren't that happy, but probably twice that number who were happy, so 2 out of 3 ain't bad?

[rainer_v]

It seems I grabbed the wrong link. Still, it sounds like he sold the lens again and kept just the 14-24G and 24 TS-E II, so I guess he wasn't even happy with the 17 TS-E by itself. I have seen another couple of people who weren't that happy, but probably twice that number who were happy, so 2 out of 3 ain't bad?

because you`ve put my nose in fred miranda i went in, after many years not having been there.
i found 9 reviews of the 17tse and 11 reviews of the 24tse.

100% of this 20 reviewers said the lenses are: very sharp, very good optically, very small amount of CA, little distortion.
the critics was about too huge front elements, too price, no filters on the 17 and some details like that ( anyway price isnt a detail but we here in the beautyfull 16bit  mf world are really used to pay much worser amounts of money ).

funny how you can write what you are writing. maybe you should test them yourself ?  

[rethmeier]

Same old story!
You have to test these lenses for yourself.
Currently I'm happy with my D3x and the Nikon PC-e lenses.
Apart from the easy to fix barrel distortion,the 14-24 is also very useful.


However,when Canon launches their 1DsMk4,I will certainly have a look at the 17 TSE and the 24 TSE II.
Hopefully by then,there will be a 35 TSE and a 45 TSE II and a 90 TSE II

Maybe Nikon by then will have a 17 PC-e ?

Happy shooting,

Best,
Willem.

[asf]

because you`ve put my nose in fred miranda i went in, after many years not having been there.
i found 9 reviews of the 17tse and 11 reviews of the 24tse.

100% of this 20 reviewers said the lenses are: very sharp, very good optically, very small amount of CA, little distortion.
the critics was about too huge front elements, too price, no filters on the 17 and some details like that ( anyway price isnt a detail but we here in the beautyfull 16bit  mf world are really used to pay much worser amounts of money ).

funny how you can write what you are writing. maybe you should test them yourself ?  

Was just about to write something similar, to ask for links to negative reviews as I haven't seen any (not that I was looking). Yes, people complain about not being able to use filters and the dangerous front element, but these aren't complaints about the lens' performance optically.

I find the 17 needs 1-2pts green shift correction in LR sometimes. In DPP there's no CA.

[Carsten W]

because you`ve put my nose in fred miranda i went in, after many years not having been there.
i found 9 reviews of the 17tse and 11 reviews of the 24tse.

100% of this 20 reviewers said the lenses are: very sharp, very good optically, very small amount of CA, little distortion.
the critics was about too huge front elements, too price, no filters on the 17 and some details like that ( anyway price isnt a detail but we here in the beautyfull 16bit  mf world are really used to pay much worser amounts of money ).

funny how you can write what you are writing. maybe you should test them yourself ?  

Well... I could do so, but in doing so, I would only get one copy and so I would not have a statistically valid sample, whether positive or negative. I read only the Alternative forum on FM, so I don't know what people in the Canon forum there are saying. I don't own Canon equipment any more, just Leica M and Contax 645/Sinar MFDB (and a couple of old Hasselblads).

[asf]

Well... I could do so, but in doing so, I would only get one copy and so I would not have a statistically valid sample, whether positive or negative. I read only the Alternative forum on FM, so I don't know what people in the Canon forum there are saying. I don't own Canon equipment any more, just Leica M and Contax 645/Sinar MFDB (and a couple of old Hasselblads).

Then how about pointing to a test of a bad copy? Or something where someone complains of poor performance?
You say 1 of 3 reviews you've read are unsatisfied users, I'd like to see this as I haven't seen any bad reviews or complaints. Not being able to use a filter isn't an example of a bad copy.

[haefnerphoto]

I picked up a 17mm TS about 10 days ago and shot this project last week.  Immediately, it became my favorite lens!  Before the 17, I would use my 28mm Mamiya more often than not with a P45.  I also bought a 5DMk2 and am equally impressed with it.  Attached are some of the images taken of this new building project, they've all been retouched but I think you'll get an idea of what the lens is capable of.  Jim

[attachment=17962:AM2_002_...just_dc4.jpg]
[attachment=17963:AM2_024_...just_dc5.jpg]
[attachment=17964:AM2_040_...just_dc7.jpg]
[attachment=17965:PM1_088_dc4.jpg]

[asf]

Well, perhaps you just got as lucky as everyone else and got a good copy ........

Sarcasm aside, it's hard not to be impressed with this lens.

[uaiomex]

I may sound heretic but first and second pic have MF quality (webwise) Wow! A dozen wow's!  Definetely it's my next lens.
Eduardo

[quote name='haefnerphoto' date='Nov 15 2009, 09:50 PM' post='325135']
I picked up a 17mm TS about 10 days ago and shot this project last week.  Immediately, it became my favorite lens!  Before the 17, I would use my 28mm Mamiya more often than not with a P45.  I also bought a 5DMk2 and am equally impressed with it.  Attached are some of the images taken of this new building project, they've all been retouched but I think you'll get an idea of what the lens is capable of.  Jim

[JeffKohn]

No doubt the 17 TS-E is an impressive piece of glass. Call me crazy but I just don't see much appeal to a 17mm FOV on full-frame, unless shooting tight interiors. Backing up will almost always give you a more pleasing and natural looking perspective, especialling for things like architecture where the 100+ degree FOV's will create a distorted and even misleading impression of the building's proportions.

Granted, sometimes backing up is not an option, but I get the impression some photographers are using these really wide FOV's just because they can. (There are a lot of truly awful pictures taken with the Nikon 14-24m to back this up. IMHO).

Personally I'd much rather have something in the 30-32mm range to slot in-between the 24mm and 45mm options. On the wide end 20mm is about is wide as I would want to go.

[JonRoemer]

I picked up a 17mm TS about 10 days ago and shot this project last week.  Immediately, it became my favorite lens!  Before the 17, I would use my 28mm Mamiya more often than not with a P45.  I also bought a 5DMk2 and am equally impressed with it.  Attached are some of the images taken of this new building project, they've all been retouched but I think you'll get an idea of what the lens is capable of.  Jim

I've been shooting with the 17 tse since early August and it's a stunning lens.  One needs to be careful using it as things can get wacky pretty quickly if you are too much off angle.  The lens has a wonderful 3D quality to it, even more so than the new 24 tse II.  In the right conditions (e.g. you can't back up, there's nothing in the foreground getting too distorted, etc.) it works wonders.

Images #1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 in this gallery were shot with it.  #1 is a composite of three horiz. frames shot with the 17 tse.

Every image in this gallery except #3 was shot with it.

The three images in this blog post were also shot with it.  You can see in the first image that the desk is getting too stretched out but in the last image there's enough other detail that it doesn't matter.

To me the 24mm tse II is the real workhorse on architecture jobs.  It gets the most use.  If an image can be shot with the 45 tse then great but more often than not it's the 24.  When that doesn't work the 17 is perfect and a welcome change from having to use the 16-35 II @ 19mm or the 14mm II.

[Carsten W]

Then how about pointing to a test of a bad copy? Or something where someone complains of poor performance?
You say 1 of 3 reviews you've read are unsatisfied users, I'd like to see this as I haven't seen any bad reviews or complaints. Not being able to use a filter isn't an example of a bad copy.

I'll try to find some of the posts again, but please understand that 1) since my personal observations are worth exactly zero to anyone with an opinion of their own, and 2) it is really dull to re-read threads trying to find posts that you read casually a few days or weeks previously, I may not find them again. If I do, I will post links here, promised. Maybe the few posts that I have seen on the matter really weren't statistically accurate, it is quite possible, I just don't know. It just struck me from the posts I have seen so far that while many are raving and happy, a few are not, and sold it again.

One thing about this lens that I find interesting, and which must have Nikon throwing a hissy fit, is that just when Nikon released a bunch of T/S lenses to match or exceed Canon's stable at the time, Canon responded with a dramatically updated lens (24 TS-E II) and a game changer (17 TS-E). People who would have switched to Nikon are now staying with Canon again. Quite a coup.

[JoeKitchen]

The 17mm looks like a nice piece of glass, but I feel that the investment is not worth it.  First of all this lens is approaching the price of MF lenses, and Schneider and Rodenstock are not going to let Canon or Nikon ever reach them in quality (a specialist will always out preform a generalist).  Would it not be better just to make the investment into a MF system and get the equivalent lenses?  

Second, 17 mm lenses on a full framed DSLR have a pretty big stretch factor, and as you get towards the edge of the image circle, this is only going to get worse.  You can get the same view with little stretching by just stitching on a 24 (or 35 in MF).  Now mind you do not get the same amount of flexibility with stitching on a t/s lens as opposed to a view camera, but I still feel that it is to pricey for the limited amount of time it would be used.  

I right now have a 12 to 24 mm zoom and insofar as professional use, I have only ever used it once because of the stretch factor, and I know I could have gotten that shot with stitching, but it was not necessary.  Now some of you are probably saying, it saved you time having that lens.  Maybe 5 minutes, but when you put 1 to 4 hours into a single interior, an extra 5 minutes is really no time at all.  

Last, I have to agree with Jeff Kohn in that some photographers just get things to get them, even if the investment is not worth it and do not think it through.  If you really need this lens for your work, get it.   Remember though that Weston took almost all of his images with the same lens he bought for $15 in a junk store and his work is studied by many.  

I would rather just save, wait, and make an investment into a MF system when the time is right.

[asf]

Second, 17 mm lenses on a full framed DSLR have a pretty big stretch factor, and as you get towards the edge of the image circle, this is only going to get worse.  You can get the same view with little stretching by just stitching on a 24 (or 35 in MF).  Now mind you do not get the same amount of flexibility with stitching on a t/s lens as opposed to a view camera, but I still feel that it is to pricey for the limited amount of time it would be used.

Please explain your concept of "stretch factor" and how stitching a 24 will eliminate this.