Canon 24mm TSE II

[Michael R 1974]

In 35mm I'm primarily a Nikon shooter but after much research I've nearly decided to buy the Canon 24mm TSE II with a cheap used Canon body (probably a EOS 1n). 24mm is a very useful focal length for me, as is TSE functionality (I use the Nikkor 45mm and 85mm PCE lenses quite often) and this particular Canon lens seems to be pretty much the best 24mm SLR lens ever. It is sharp (so is the Nikkor 24mm PCE), but it also has almost zero distortion! Wow! I had a chance to try one out and I was really impressed, so much so that I'm willing to spend an additional few hundred dollars for a used Canon body just for this lens. The only annoying thing about Canon bodies is the stupid way they incorporate mirror lockup (which is a must-have for me). Why couldn't they make a damn lever like Nikon, instead of having you access all sorts of wonky menus? Oh well. A minor annoyance I suppose.

Anyone else have this lens? Do you love it?

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Don't have one but wish I did: it's the only Canon lens I'd want to have...

[Michael R 1974]

I agree that's what's so interesting about this situation. It beats everything in that focal length in my opinion. A complete package.

[ozphoto]

Was toying with getting this one for a while, then they released the 17 TS-E. I picked that baby up and all I can say is . . . . WOW!! If the 24 is anything like the 17, you will not be disappointed. I also have the 90 TS-E which makes for a lovely portrait lens and is superb for arty detail shots with short focus.

[Michael R 1974]

I have the Nikkor PC-E 45mm and 85mm and love them. But it seems like the Canon 24 is a little better for me than the Nikkor 24, mainly because the Canon has virtually zero distortion.

I think the latest Canon 24mm and 17mm are both supposed to be awesome, so I'm not surprised to hear you're loving the 17mm. I've never personally had much use for something quite that wide, but 24mm is one of my favourite focal lengths so I'm about 99% decided on the Canon 24mm.

[F/1.4]

I think the TS-E 24 being the best 24mm is pretty subjective.

I think the Nikon or Canon 24mm f/1.4's are better, they bring in over 4 times the light the T/S's do, can isolate subjects much better, and have AF. I need that for the weddings I'm able to shoot analog on and my fastest film is 400 (at 200). At 24mm, I'd MUCH rather have f/1.4 than T/S, regardless of distortion.

Different strokes, different folks. Also if you can afford (which I assume you can considering how expensive the 24 is), instead of getting the 24TS, get a 4x5 view camera with a 90mm. I can't think of many uses for a 24TS outside of landscape/architecture, and Large Format is much more suitable for landscapes/architecture than the pithy 35mm format.

Now if you're shooting with a 5DII, well that's a different story..

[2F/2F]

It is not a minor annoyance. It is a major design SNAFU that people have been complaining about for two decades now. Idiots! It is a little bit better on the digitals. At least you don't have to memorize custom function numbers and settings. But still...

But for your case, sine this lens will be the only reason you have the body, you can just leave it set on mirror lockup mode most of the time. Make a note on a piece of tape about the custom function number and setting, and stick it to the camera for the times you want to shoot it without MLU.

[Poisson Du Jour]

Operational quirks aside, the real challenge for you is getting the most out of it; it is a very expensive optic, for what it is. Mastering it is not impossible, but it will take time. Read up on the Scheimpflug Principle and be prepared for a bit of frustration, because the smaller format means much smaller movements are required to introduce the correct amount of effect (with lots of focus/refocus, checking, rechecking of DoF etc.). I bought my (Mk I) TSE-24mm in 1997 and it took 5 years of intensive use and research to bring the effects to fruition. All TS-E lenses according to Canon are in a specialist area; they certainly don't sell millions of them like so many other L-series optics.

Harold Merklinger published an excellent 4-part reference on the Scheimpflug Principle in Shutterbug, November 1992. Some of the reading and technique is very deep, and certainly there are simpler ways (practical ways) of understanding what the lens is doing. Canon's own publication, long out of print, is "The Impossible Picture", published in the Netherlands in 1994 with excellent pictorial diagrams illustrating the affect of introducing movements, along with elementary mathematical conversions for arriving at the right degree of tilt.

Be aware that the use of shift (only) will introduce exposure errors unless you meter first, lock in the reading, then apply shift.

[Øyvnd:D]

Take a look at new Schneider ?mm and Olympus OM 24mm TS-lenses.

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]

Different strokes, different folks. Also if you can afford (which I assume you can considering how expensive the 24 is), instead of getting the 24TS, get a 4x5 view camera with a 90mm. I can't think of many uses for a 24TS outside of landscape/architecture, and Large Format is much more suitable for landscapes/architecture than the pithy 35mm format.

Now if you're shooting with a 5DII, well that's a different story..

Have you worked the 90mm TS-E as a macro lens, elevating and increasing depth of field? Or, used the TS-E 24 for portraiture or still life? And what are you printing to to blithely assume that 35mm is not suitable for landscapes? You sound a lot like the way Ken Rockwell rattles on comparing this and that and one thing over the other with no technical balance to reinforce it. Please, some of us have been in 35mm professional practice for decades.