Hi, I am about to make an upgrade from my 50D to a 5D, so I will need to trade my 10-22 that doesnt suit the new full frame body.
I have a 24-105 that I will keep and need a wide angle for this body, I take a lot of architectural pictures.
So, I am considering one of those 3 lenses
Canon 17TS-E, its very expensive, does anybody has this lens and can tell me if its practical to use? For what I´ve seen it would both fix the converging lines of architectural and increase DOF in some special type of photography where you have a plane going to the infinity (and I take a lot of those pictures).
16-35, its also very expensive, but wide open to 2.8 is a good possibility for interiors where you cant use a tripod and the 16mm is a very good angle to "fit it all"
17-40 the cheapest solution, still an L grade lens and a much lighter solutin to carry around on my trips (both other lenses are almost twice the weight)
So, what do you think?
The Tilt Shift lens looks like a great lens, but has its drawbacks, I am not sure if you can take pictures with it without a tripod, for instance, and the glass element is fragile and its not possible to use a polarizer filter (you can allways post process in photoshop, but its better to have the effect right from the camera).
The 16-35 would add the extra wide mm (that I currently have with my 10-22 and my 50D), but with an extra point of light, I´ve heard though, the lens is prone to collect dust.
Also, yeah, I am already investing a lot with my 5D, so budget is allways a concern.
Quoted Message: Nicku, you are sugesting the wide angle because you dont like the tilt shift?
No... is a good lens... but is a fix focal length... and in practice having a fixed ultra wide lens can be limited on many occasions.... In my opinion the 17mm TS-E is mostly an studio dedicated lens...
100mm f/2.8 USM, Quad core Workstation PC with 8Gb of RAM and Nvidia ...
The tilt and shif lens is a specialized one. It has limited applications. You can consider it as a complement when you have the budget. From the other 2, I would go for the 16-35mm/f2.8. But I am not experienced with any of these lenses, so don't take it as a professional advice.
I would be interested in your feedback once you make your decision. I am still on ASPC sensor cameras (although considering going full-frame in the next years) and using the 10-22mm EF-S lens which I find very usefull. However, I am not very pleased with the quality, but seems like there are no alternatives for not-full-frame cameras in this domain.
Quoted Message: The tilt and shif lens is a specialized one. It has limited applications. You can consider it as a complement when you have the budget. From the other 2, I would go for the 16-35mm/f2.8. But I am not experienced with any of these lenses, so don`t take it as a professional advice.I would be interested in your feedback once you make your decision. I am still on ASPC sensor cameras (although considering going full-frame in the next years) and using the 10-22mm EF-S lens which I find very usefull. However, I am not very pleased with the quality, but seems like there are no alternatives for not-full-frame cameras in this domain.Bogdan
Thanks for your input Bogdan, the effect of tilt and shifts can be obtained with post processing to fix the converging lines or stacking to increase DOF, but it looses a bit of the quality and some resolution (and its a hell lot of work), but, quite frankly, the 5d has a so high resolution I can spare some pixels...
I am not at all convinced, though, the zoom range we would be talking about is only between 16 to 24 mm (I have the 24-105), but in some point you are right, its easier to use a zoom lens than a fixed one.
I dont think the 17 TS-E is for studio, too much of a wide angle for studio, its more for architecture, specially interiors, but it seems to be a bit bulky and fragile to carry around (I am mostly a traveler photographer), so I think you are probably right, I should go for the 16-35 for its flexibility or the 17-40 for the budget, anyway, I would really apreciate if somebody with experience on the tilt shift could explain to us if they are using it and how practical it is to use it, even if I decide to do it later.
Now on your question about the APSC.
First the quality:
I think the quality of the images is amazing, Canon is pushing it a little bit too much with the 18MP, though,
With the 50D 15MP we were already at the edge, so you need to check your images at 100% and in many cases you should (IMHO) decrease the resolution, I am doing this a lot with the 50D and would probably do it even more with a 60D.
The problem lies in two places, difraction that becomes aparent anywhere closer than f8,
With the 50D until f13 I can go using a bit more sharpening if that wont increase the noise (say, if I took the picture with ISO100), probably with the 60D f13 would need a downgrade in the resolution, at least to 15MP (so it would be the same as the 50D). Closer than this, like f16, difraction is very aparent and you need to downsample a lot to get rid of it, you would need to sharpen it too much an noise becomes aparent.
The other place is the lenses which need to resolve such an amount of detail in an APSC with 18MP that simply you dont get all the resolution with cheaper lenses.
Now on the practical size, with the 24-105 L I am taking amazing images, with the 10-22 very good, but I have to sharpen them a bit more (or decrease resolution).
With the 70-300 IS (the cheaper lens I have) the images turn out to be resolutionwise amazingly good, what I dont like much is the contrast, so I have to push it in PS, but it was a very good lens,..., until last week when the IS broke and the repair is more expensive than the lens itself! Can you believe it!
So, why to go to a full frame? Well, in my case two things:
1) To have more detail. With the full frame you can go to 21MP or even more, you are not at the limit of the lens and difraction (even though its not that far).
2) Less noise so I can take handheld pictures with low light (say inside a church)...
But its not all good in the full frame kingdom, the DOF is smaller so one might need to close more the lenses in order to have the same DOF as in an APSC, so you might end up with the same resolution to avoid the difraction...
What would be one solution for this dilemma? Tilt the lens! So we come back to my first question, hehe....
Of course if you dont need that much DOF, the full frame will deliver more resolution.
Another side effect is that the 16-35 and the 17-40 are L grade lenses so they probably can resolve more details than the 10-22.