11-14-2012 02:11 PM
What do you guys think about the 2 mentioned lenses specifically for architecture or landscape photography?
My measurement aspects are sharpness, DoF, color reproduction, distortion, lateral fringes..
I am eager to hear what mey fellow canonites (don't know if I can say that ) think about it.. !!
11-14-2012 03:41 PM
I love the 24 TS-E II as the sharpest of my lenses, and it fulfills your criteria the best. It can be easily shifted for 3-image panoramas, or simply used for multi-image panoramas, far exceeding the 17 TS-E (unless motion is involved).
I find the 16-35L II to be one of the most useful lenses, even though it's not as sharp or aberration-free as the 24 or 17 TS-E.
You might consider something a bit longer too -- the new EF 40/2.8 STM or the amazing old EF 50/2.5 Macro.
The 17 TS-E is on my wish list, but I've covered that range pretty well with the above.
11-14-2012 03:56 PM - edited 11-14-2012 04:01 PM
For architecture, the TSE lenses hands down; the 24mm is stunning and the 17mm not far behind.
We used to use the 16-35 in a pinch for architecture until we got the 17mm TSE. I like the 16-35 for travel and for landscape it is OK - and a lot safer to carry around. There's really no way to protect the 17mm TSE's bulging lens but to cap it. Filters are also a consideration - much trickier to use with the 17mm TSE.
Also, a really wide lense for landscape, the 14mm 2.8 L, is very nice and also can work well for architecture.
11-14-2012 06:00 PM
11-14-2012 08:01 PM
A great help with MF lenses is an external monitor. I have found that high resolution really helps and recommend the Small HD DP6. Its a high definition 800x1280 5.6" LCD that connects to your cameras HDMI output. There is also several software features that help with getting the best resolution and enhancing detection of in/out of focus. Here is a recent article describing its use with Canon TSE lenses.
11-14-2012 09:55 PM - edited 11-14-2012 09:59 PM
I would really lie the ts-e 24mm, but my 78 year old eyes & MF don't co-exist very well. So presently I make do with the 16-35/2.8 L II & the 24-70/2.8 L II
I use the angle finder - way handy for accurate focus - and if you are tall it helps with the typically requisite low camera height required for interiors.
Also, on a tripod, shooting at f11, depth of field is VERY forgiving with the wide lenses. And when selective focus is needed, the angle finder will help you dial it in. And, the focusing system in the camera is still working - it won't spin the lens, but it will BEEP to let you know when you nail it. I'm near blind too, but MF works fine for these lenses.
11-16-2012 01:33 AM
I have both. Here's my take:
Pros: super sharp to the edges, minimal barrel distortion and CA, low flare considering the bulbous element.
Cons: cost, weight, filtering issues.
Pros: zooming is nice for framing, big but accessible filters, somewhat sharp edges around f11 - f16
Cons: moderate to strong barrel and CA (correctable in LR4), lacking amazing edge sharpness.
I still use my 16-35 for many architecture projects, becuase of the ability to easily use a polarizer. I always shoot both lenses with the body fully leveled. But the 17 has that amazing ability to shift up or down, which means I don't need to be at a certain height in a room.
I do want to get the TS-E 24mm M2 at some point though. I've heard some shooters use the 17 with a 1.4x, but that just doesn't sound like a method I want to use!