Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L

I tested Canon´s new superb 17mm tilt shift lens already in June. But then came E-P1 and I´ve been shooting like crazy. Now, finally I found time to write my impressions on this great lens.

Canon´s new super wideangle tilt shift lens is absolutely fabulous (well I kind of said it already but that´s what it really is) but it also is not one of the easiest lenses to use. Even a regular 17mm lens takes some time to master but this beast with it´s ample movements gives a whole new meaning to wideangle distortions. Of course  already it´s price at about 2500 euros rises it above the reach of casual shooter. This is a PRO lens.

TS-E 17mm is a totally new lens, a new design and only Canon has such a lens presently. This kind of lens is basically a normal/short tele lens with a powerful wideangle adapter in front. This is very obvious if you look at the huge bulging front element. This large element, however, is one ingredient in the performance of this lens. One other important feature is nano coating inside of first element. I have noticed in practise that lenses with nano coating have time after time a better micro contrast than other lenses from either Canon or Nikon. This lens has also UD and aspherical elements but I`m not going further into technical specifications. They can be found at Canon websites. A sad but also obvious fact is that lens prices will get higher as manufacturers are trying to make lenses that are up to 20+ MP sensors. More and more nano coatings, special glass, special surfaces etc and tighter tolerances at manufacturing.

Another Canon first in TS or PC lenses are separately revolving tilt and shift adjustment planes. This gives the shooter more options. I will not go here into using these adjustments. Tutorials can be found elsewhere. Usage is familiar to every shooter who has used Canon TS-E lenses. Everything goes smoothly and precisely. Everything in the handling of this lens tells about quality. 

Suited for

As I see it, this TS-E 17mm is suited for interiors, landscapes, architecture and product photography. In this order. I´m going to write later on using this lens and Canon´s new TS-E 24mm f/3.5 MkII in product and landscape photography. So, I´m passing those genres here.

Interiors

Above we have an interior shot which combined from three TS-E 17mm shots: one normal and two extra shots with lens at maximum shifts to the right and left. These three shots were combined into one photograph in Photoshop. Now, this kind of job SHOULD actually be done so that lens stays put and sensor moves, a job for a view camera or special tripod head for 35mm camera. When sensor stays put and lens moves, the vantage point moves and combining of images is not automatic like it is in the first case. When lens moves, you need to do some manual work in Photoshop to get things aligned and it is more difficult the wider the lens. With masks aligning can be done reasonably fast if you know how to do it. Below panoramatic shot we have the single center image on the left.

Image Quality

TS-E 17mm gives a very high image quality in interior shots. Better than any comparable wideangle lens I have ever used. 

Above on the right there are two 100% crops from combined shot above. They are from the left upper corner and right lower corner. Sharpness and contrast holds on even with maximum shift. There is some chromatic aberration but surprisingly little considering angle of view. Very little distortions. Canon body used here is 5D MkII, ISO 100, f/11. 

Finally on the left the smaller crop is from a shot with Nikon D3x and Nikon´s formidable 14-24mm zoom. The difference here is real, both images are focused equally, same aperture f/11. Of course any difference is most obvious in the corner, but same trend is seen through out the whole picture. Canon image is sharper and has better contrast in these only slightly sharpened shots. D3x is a ”sharper” camera than 5D2 as such at ISO 100 and Nikon´s 14-24mm zoom is a VERY good lens. This only shows how good the TS-E 17mm really is.

Above another version of the same interior. Done in the same way as the horizontal one but this time I had camera vertically. Same procedure, same possible difficulties while combining shots. This version gives a much nicer sense of spaciousness and also an aspect ratio that is suitable for most interiors. This image shows also how careful you have to be with corners with such an extremely wide view.

One more interior. Same procedure: three vertical shots with maximum shift, combined in Photoshop. Curvature of vertical line to the left of image is NOT caused by TS-E 17mm lens. I had to go and check afterwards and it actually is a fault of builders. This curvature is obvious here but not really noticed by the naked eye while standing in the room.

Buildings, Architecture

Architecture did not take the first spot in my suited for list. Here´s why. With this lens you have to be really careful with angles and not distort the building too much. This is not a horror example. This is the true nature of TS-E 17mm ;-). I think a 24mm TS/PC lens is more suited for architecture. 17mm is for those situations where you really need those extra angles and know how to tame the beast. Shot with 5D2, ISO 100, f/13. Image quality is superb.

TS/PC lens or ordinary wideangle and Photoshop?

Well, the lens always wins. To be able to get the same result in Photoshop you need first a wider lens to shoot from the same spot because you end up cropping later. Here a 15mm lens, above. Same image corrected in Photoshop below it, before crop. My big TS-E 17mm image above has been cropped only slightly from the right (construction work). As you can see, the needed amount of tweaking is huge AND you lose most of image area while cropping. You get less and inferior pixels.

 

Tilt and Backlight

Tilt is kind of obvious. You can control plane of focus. Above I got all the flowers sharp at f/5,6. With an extreme lens like this you have to be again careful with what happens in the corners. Either you like the effect or you hate it!

Despite of huge front element this lens tolerates backlight really nicely. There is no veil all over the image on the right. Contrast stays high. Flare spots are easy to retouch if needed.

Conclusion

A very special and high quality lens for pro shooter, a very special and fun or frustrating lens for special wideangle effects. A must have for any Canonist shooting lots of interiors, a no brainer for wide angle landscape photographs with 35mm FF. All the others watch your step.

-p-

E-P1 + 14-42/3.5-5.6 ED vs. Canon 5D + 24-105/4 L IS

What would be the perfect travel camera? Which lenses? How much weight and bulky size? What kind of compromizes between size, quantity and quality? I guess these reflections are quite familiar to every photographer.

Canon 5D and zoom lens 24-105mm f/4 L IS was my travel companion for a few years. I don´t like to carry a lot of equipment with me, and this combination gave me good image quality and versatile focal lengths in a manageable size and weight. Image stabilization compensates for a mediocre maximum aperture, and lens focuses close enough. 5D has also very good high ISO performance up to ISO 800. Later I have used the same lens with 5D MkII but this combination is not as balanced because this zoom is not able to perform with 5D MkII´s higher resolution sensor. But that would be another story. Below is a landscape from Mauritius with Canon 5D and 24-105mm lens. Focal length here is 45mm @ ISO 400.

 

But then came Olympus E-P1

When I compared the general look and feel of my E-P1 shots with my earlier shots with various digital cameras, I noticed that at ISO 100 they are not that far behind from 5D images. Both have a 12 megapixel sensor which explains some. 5D is also an older camera. I don´t know how Canon and Olympus sensor tehcnologies are evolving comparatively but still 5D sensor has quadruple area which makes it even now a far better camera at higher ISOs. But lets forget high ISOs now and stay at ISO 100.

I can already hear people crying that it is not fair to compare these two cameras. A used 5D with a new 24-105mm lens costs three times as much as E-P1 with kit zoom. 5D is full format camera and 24-105 has wider zoom area. Yes, all of this is true but I can compare which ever cameras I want to when I choose my travel camera. It would be futile to compare cameras like Sinar P2 with PhaseOne digital back and Canon´s any Ixus. In that case there´s no point because they really are different, but here I have a reason!

To compare travel cameras I decided to travel with E-P1 and 5D. I took a train to Helsinki and shot churches and statues and boats and market and streets and buildings and shop windows... and some trains. It was nice to behave like a tourist for a couple of hours, have ice cream and then travel back home. Well, the train ride took only 20 minutes, but still it was nice to visit downtown Helsinki on a beautiful Sunday afternoon, which I don´t do often.

Shooting with these cameras

5D wins hands down because it has a view finder and can be hold steadily like a camera should. I had VF1 on E-P1 all the time but it is usable only for a limited range with kit zoom. I do not like to shoot through LCD screen. Period. E-P1 wins hands down because it is so light and small. It is also as fast to use as 5D. It´s easy to shoot candidly, and after that shooting with 5D feels like a performance. Both feel solid, real cameras but using them are different experiences. For how and what I like to shoot both cameras focus and expose equally well and both can be tailored to behave as I like.

Images

I took a few dozen pictures with both cameras. I used E-P1 kit zoom´s focal lenghts: 14, 18, 25, 35 and 42mm and tried to frame as closely as possible with 5D from the same spot. There were of course some fluctuation in corresponding focal lengths because these cameras have sensors with different aspect ratios. Taking several images at every focal length cancelled any unbalancing effect from this. 

I shot SuperFine JPG + RAW with E-P1 and RAW only with 5D. I opened Olympus JPGs and Canon RAWs in Lightroom. Images were quite close in general appearances, and as needed, I fine tuned Canon images as needed to have same tone and sharpness as E-P1 JPGs. Then I chose 15 representative image pairs and printed them in A3 size for evaluation. Of course I compared those pairs also on screen.

Observations

At E-P1´s (right) 14mm and 5D´s (left) 28mm focal length 100% crops are very close to each other. In this pair Canon´s lens was at a little bit wider setting because it´s difficult to set it exactly. 

At E-P1´s (right) 18mm and 5D´s (left) 35mm focal length 100% crops are again very close in quality to each other like above.

These crops are from E-P1´s (right) 25mm and 5D´s (left) 50mm focal length images. Now here is a difference, which can be seen very obviously in the word ”NESTEKAASUA”. Actually the same thing is seen in previous images if you look closely at leather surface or stone around ”1863”. Also you can see some graininess in E-P1 crop. 5D images are very clean, it simply has a better sensor and related algorithms etc. than E-P1. Now we must remember that E-P1 images are in-camera processed JPGs. We need to wait for Adobe´s RAW processor update to get really comparable results. Okay, so there is a difference in 100% crops. Images are very seldom enjoyed in 100% crops in real life. When can we actually expect to see this or any difference in practise? In A3 size prints I can´t see any these mentioned differencies. In size A2, yes, some people can see it when they are asked to compare prints closely side by side. Otherwise, it´s there but it´s not obvious to anyone. In the internet? No-one has monitors large enough. And, really, I think very few photographs are about extreme micro contrast. By the way, look at the ropes. Don´t they look sharper in E-P1 image? Here E-P1´s slight roughness is actually good and it also shows in A3 prints when compared.  

Let´s move one step forward: E-P1 (right) at 35mm and 5D (left) at 70mm focal lengths. E-P1´s humble little kit zoom has not been any worse so far compared to Canon´s mighty professional L-zoom. Actually it is slightly better at 25mm (50mm) focal length and another tad better here. Neither lens has a straight image plane, which means results are depending on subject, but these pairs seem quite typical. Also this contrast difference is barely noticeable in A3 prints. One of the worst features in E-P1 is smearing in red color. You can see it clearly in diagonal red lines.

Finally we descend to E-P1 (right) at 42mm and 5D (left) at around 84mm focal lengths. Descend because here E-P1 kit zoom is clearly worse than Canon lens. In A3 prints the difference between cameras is seen mostly as lack of contrast in almost all E-P1 images. In my opinion Olympus m4/3 kit zoom an admirable lens at 14-35mm area. It´s value for money is outstanding. At 42mm it is not actually bad but, well - try to walk a bit closer and shoot at 35mm setting.

-p-