24TS-E vs 17-40L @ 24mm is this normal?

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I tested the Canon 24mm TS-E MK I @ 0 shift and tilt against the 17-40L @ 24mm. It seems from the samples below that center sharpness is about the same. At the corners the 17-40 outperforms the 24TS-E. Is this normal? Check for your self; left is 24tse, right 17-40L:

note: there is a slight difference in cropping because the 17-40 seems wider at 24mm

full crop: both were shot at f11 but 24tse was shot at tv .5, 17-40 tv .8. the thing is both were metering tv .5 but the 17-40 pictures looking under exposed by 2/3 stop so I adjusted


center crop: this is where I focused both seem soft but given the low contrast, the seem to be ok


center right: sofa edge seems sharper in 17-40L


center left: window looks much sharper in 17-40L


bottom left: marble looks sharper in 17-40L


bottom right: 24mtse looks better due to 17-40 overblown highlight, but tse shows more chromatic distortion  


top left: same thing sharper 17-40


top right: same as above  



What exactly should I make of this, typical 24tse, bad 24tse copy, excellent 17-40L, or both bad? lol

Please share you insight, thanks in advance.

[rainer_v]

for me the 24tse-version1 allways was a unusable lense not only for missing sharpness if shifted  but also for distortion.
i would save a bit of money and get the 2. version. they have nothing common.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

for me the 24tse-version1 allways was a unusable lense not only for missing sharpness if shifted  but also for distortion.
i would save a bit of money and get the 2. version. they have nothing common.

Thanks Rainer,



but is this typical 24tse performance? I mean is the 24tse mkI normally that bad or is my copy worse than average.

[brianrybolt]

for me the 24tse-version1 allways was a unusable lense not only for missing sharpness if shifted  but also for distortion.
i would save a bit of money and get the 2. version. they have nothing common.

I agree with Rainer.  I owned the lens for about 4 years and it was just awful.  Rarely used it.  Buy the new one if you can afford it.

Brian

[Ken Bennett]

Yes, that is typical performance for the 24TSE, at least it matches what I get with mine. Total mush in the corners. Lots of CA. Lots and lots and lots of CA, in fact. Very difficult to remove from shifted images.

The version II lens is supposed to me much better (review.)

I still use my 24TSE a lot, but for the tilt, to force the edges to be very soft compared to the subject. So I don't care that the corners are soft. But for architecture, that's not such a good feature.

[Ray]

but is this typical 24tse performance? I mean is the 24tse mkI normally that bad or is my copy worse than average.

It's difficult to tell when comparing just 2 lenses unless you know the quality of one of them in relation to others. For example, your TS-E 24 might be average for that model of lens and your 17-40 might be above average.

Generally, the TS-E 24 is considered to be a rather weak lens for a prime which is why many of us are rather excited by the MkII.

[Christopher]

It's difficult to tell when comparing just 2 lenses unless you know the quality of one of them in relation to others. For example, your TS-E 24 might be average for that model of lens and your 17-40 might be above average.

Generally, the TS-E 24 is considered to be a rather weak lens for a prime which is why many of us are rather excited by the MkII.

Well I can tell you that my version looks better in the corner after a larger shift. So I would say that is NOT normal. However I know that I have a very good copy of my Mk1 version, which is the main reason I will not buy the new one.

[erick.boileau]

I have sold my TSE  24mm I a few month ago, even without any tilt or shift  it was not good at all  in the corners , and a lot of fringe , a bad lens in my opinion
I shall certainly buy the II version

[Pedro Kok]

From these pictures, the left side appears slightly worse than the right. You might have some alignment problems with the lens elements; if it's still under warranty, send it to Canon for a look. Else, the I don't think the problem is that bad to spend money fixing it.

Capture One Pro does a marvelous job correcting chromatic aberration when shifted. Combined with a better RAW processing engine, I'm fairly happy with my 24mm TS-E, even when fully shifted into the red zone.

Many photographers have used this lens for the 17 years it has been on the market. Magazine covers, full spreads, poster prints were shot with it, without diminishing any photographic quality attributes. If you can justify the cost of the TS-E II, then by all means go for it. But keep in mind that your lens is still a very capable photographic tool.

Cheers,
Pedro

[JonRoemer]

Well I can tell you that my version looks better in the corner after a larger shift. So I would say that is NOT normal. However I know that I have a very good copy of my Mk1 version, which is the main reason I will not buy the new one.

My 24 tse v1 is also better than what Abdulrahman is seeing, especially with no shift.  With no shift, my 24 tse v1 holds its own quite well when I've tested it against other 24's.  That said, I'll be selling it once I get around to it because I do have the new Mark II version and it is an improvement worth having in my work.

Abdulrahman, if you didn't test using Live View on both lenses then I would do that. Pick the same focus point, focus manually via Live View on the back of the camera. It's often surprising because in the film days we were led to believe that with a lens as wide as the 24 and @ f/11, focus did not need to be too critical. Well, it is.  If you focused both lenses manually but did not use Live View or if you focused the 24 tse manually but had the 17-40 on autofocus - I'd do at least one more round of testing.

Also, when you go to re-test, double-check that the 24 tse is neutral in terms of tilt.

--
Site | Blog

[francois]

My 24 TSE Version 1 while not stellar is much better than the posted samples... I would have retuned my copy immediately if it was that bad!

[tokengirl]

That's pretty awful.  I agree with others, save your pennies and get the TS-E II.

Here's a sample image and a 100% of the lower right corner.  It is SHARP.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Here's a sample image and a 100% of the lower right corner.  It is SHARP.

Yes, the TS-E II is very sharp (I own one), but since you shifted the lens, the crop you are showing us was expected to be the sharpest area of the image as it nearly corresponds to the optical axis of the lens. So it is not a good example of corner to corner sharpness. The top of that beach building would have been a better test area.

Regards

[David Eichler]

I have original 24mm ts-e and the 17-40mm, although  I have never compared them directly at 24mm.  In my opinion Canon's quality control with lenses leaves something to be desired, especially on the wide end.  I have tried a couple of the original 24mm ts-e lenses and 3 or 4 of the 17-40mm.  The ts-e lenses were pretty close but the zooms varied a lot, from miserable to very good. I tried a copy of the Canon 16-35mm II, and it was mushy on the corners, yet others report very good performance from this lens.  My copy of the 24mm ts-e is quite sharp througought the frame with with no or moderate shifts, if stopped down at least to F:8. Quality does fall off a lot with greater movement, but I find it a very useable lens.  Reports indicate the newer version is much better though.  As for the 17-40mm, I found a pretty good copy which is very usable.  Quality does vary throughout the range, but I bought it for the wider end, which is very good on my copy.  

I don't understand the comment about the original  24mm ts-e having a lot of distortion. I don't see much, and what is there is easily correctable in post.  The 17mm-40mm Canon, however, has complex curvilinear distortion, which is not always so easy to fix.

The original 24mm ts-e does have a lot of CA.  Usually it is pretty fixable in post, but occasionally there are shots that stubbornly resist this.

I think you really need to be prepared to try several copies of Canon lenses before buying.

[uaiomex]

I perceive your TS much softer on the left side. Maybe a minute amount of tilt was inadvertently applied. My copy appears to be sharper than yours. My copy behaves pretty well with medium shifts applied at f13. Also notice that the 17-40 when at 24mm is very close to its optimum lenght (28mm). At 17mm it is much softer at the corners at any fstop and its mustache distortion is a real bitch.
Eduardo

[Ray]

I get the impression these test shots of the TS-E 24 have been taken with a 5D2. I could also claim that my shots on my 12.7mp 5D using my copy of the TS-E 24 without shift, from memory, might be sharper than Abdul's test images, but I can't be sure because I've never used this lens with a 21mp sensor.

It appears to be the case that, as one increases sensor resolution, lens resolution fall-off at the edges and corners becomes more noticeable and more of a problem for large prints, or at 100% view on the monitor.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Many thanks to everybody for their help and suggestions. I found every feedback to be very helpful, so please keep them coming.


I did another test and just like last time I used tripod with no column rise, screen mode, mirror lockup, 10 second timer, and 10x focusing. The only difference being that I left the exposure the same. Apparently the 17-40 eats light. The results mirror those of the previous test. Judge for your self:


full crop


center crop: notice how the 24tse looks brighter by 1/3 stop


bottom right: the 17-40 is sharper, but the difference isn't big


bottom left: the 24tse is so soft here, it's no joke



I think this lens performs average throughout the frame except in the left side were it performs poorly.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Given that I have bought this lens used for $850 is it fair for me to request returning it. Also is this kind of problem repairable?

I am really curious to know what causes those kind of problems? Is it bad glass, or bad glass alignment and in the later case is it possible to correct bad alignment?

Even if I keep it now and deiced to sell it later as my architectural work picks up, how much would I have to discount this lens to accommodate for this weakness?  


Thanks
Abdulrahman