lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Folks,
Now that I own a new Sony a7 mk II full-frame mirrorless camera and know which Canon EF-to-Sony E-mt adapter to purchase when the time comes, I’m scoping the market for a Canon 24 mm Tilt-Shift lens.

To my surprise (or is it just my ignorance,) I discovered the other day at KEH Camera that not only do they, at the moment, have a few in stock used, but there’s such a critter as mk I for a bit more than half the price of a mk II.

Now I can look up the technical differences between these two lenses on my own, but I ask y'all: ARE THERE ANY OTHER DIFFERENCES, possibly INTANGIBLE, BETWEEN THESE TWO LENSES THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY SHOW UP IN ANY SPEC COMPARISON?

Thank you!

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

I will keep an eye on this post because I'd like to know also. I have never sued a tilt shift but always wanted to play around with one. I may rent one just for the heck of it.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Nice to know. I’ve never sued a lens either.

SS319

OTW Question on Tilt-shift, I assume you want this lens to control perspective on large structures that you cannot get away from.

Is there a discernible qualitative difference between the control of perspective in the camera as opposed to perspective control in post processing? I often square up buildings vertically or horizontally in Paint Shop Pro, and I used tilt shift lenses back in the film days, and I am not convinced there is a difference.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

I have the 24mm II version, although I cannot compare the optics to the original, I love the abilities and IQ of this lens. Technically, the major difference in use between the two is you can rotate the swing and tilt independently on version 2. On version one, the swing and tilt are set perpendicular to each other and rotate as a single part of the lens. I understand you can have that upgraded by Canon, but the cost puts you near the price of version 2.

My 17mm TSe lens also features the independent rotation of swing and tilt, but the 45mm, being older, does not. I would assume the newest trio of TSe lens just release also have independent rotation, but I do not know that for a fact.

I find the difference between using a TSe lens versus post processing vary, depending on what you're shooting and what are acceptable results to a client. Exterior shots can be conveniently straightened in post without much distortion. Where I find the TSe to shine is shooting interiors to minimize volume anamorphosis or deformation. The un-realistic elongation of furniture, fixtures, etc at the edges of the frame. DXO Viewpoint does a fair job in reducing this effect, but with a TSe lens, I can capture correctly and not spend time on hoping to correct it enough for clients approval in post.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Thanks for your thought, but I have made up my mind. Your question is moot for me in this topic.

repleo Loc: Boston

FYI
Fotodiox make several shift-only ($99) and tilt/shift adapters ($199). I got an Olympus OM to Sony e-mount shift adapter I use with a regular OM 24mm lens I got for a couple of bucks on eBay. My shift-only adapter allows several degrees of up-down movement which provides some perspective correction if that is what you are looking for. They also have adapters for other manufacturers and for several medium format lens mounts to Sony e-mount (and Fuji and M4/3 cameras). A think a medium format lens would give you more range of shift than a 35mm lens. The advantage of the adapter is that you can use different focal length lenses without having to spend an extra grand for each one.
Check here for Canon - Sony tilt / shift adapter. I don't know if it is compatible with EF but if you search the site you should be able to find anything you want.
https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/lens-mount-adapters/products/tltrokr-fd-snye

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I did a little internet searching a few weeks ago on this very subject and found, for the most part, that the older ones are not nearly as good optically as the newer ones.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

jdubu,
Thank you so much for your most pertinent reply!!

For now, I have one question for you: What precisely do you mean by swing and tilt? Is that identical to "shift and tilt", or does it refer instead to the axes one can manually adjust? If the latter, would you please articulate for me, if you have the time, what you mean separately, by "swing" and by "tilt"?

Thank you!

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

repleo,
Thank you for your thoughts. I’m still considering this adapter option as well.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

That's a wonderful sentiment, jackm1943, but I need something more substantive, such as perhaps the actual URLs of those you found most pertinent and informative.

Forgive me, please, but understand that when I, and I suspect others as well, put money out for a pricey piece of equipment, some online acquaintance's 12-word general assessment of others' opinions is not particularly informative, per se.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

Same meaning with different wording. Swing or shift, rotated to 90 degrees is rise and fall, etc.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Sorry but I don't remember the particular URLs that I looked at. I too am considering a 24 or 45mm TS Canon lens. It's not just a "sentiment", whatever you mean by that. I looked at quite a few sites (found with Google and UTube) and there was complete agreement that the new ones are significantly better than the old ones, so I'm no longer considering an older one. Just Google and/or UTube it and you will find quite a lot of info.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Technique and terminology is pretty well described here:
https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content/uploads/sites/131/2015/09/CalumetDigitalGuide1.pdf

https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-camera-movements/

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

1. Image quality:

The Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L "II" has considerably improved image quality, compared to the original version. The main "problem" with the original was chromatic aberration in high contrast situations. It also shows some vignetting at some apertures and can be a little prone to flare.

While CA from most lenses is pretty easily corrected in post processing, that's not the case with TS-E lenses. This is because - due to the lens' movements and depending upon how those are set - CA can occur differently in different parts of an image.... there may be none on one side while there's stronger on the other.

Vignetting or fall off of peripheral illumination is fairly easily corrected in post-processing.

I don't want to make the original version sound "terrible"... it's not. It's a unique and very capable lens. I still use one and haven't been able to justify the upgrade to the II.

The II has addressed most of these "issues" very well... it has less CA, more even illumination, especially at the more extreme movements, and is more flare resistant.


2. Physical similarities and differences:

Both are manual focus only and extremely well built. They are hefty, nearly solid metal and glass. All the TS-E lenses are "bricks"!

The original TS-E 24mm uses 72mm filters. The II is considerably larger diameter and uses 82mm filters. The II produces a larger image circle than the earlier version, which is part of the reason it shows less fall off of light at the edges when movements are near their extreme. I think the II has one or two more degrees of movement than the original... and it's fair to say it's more usable at the extremes.

If I recall correctly, one of the control knobs on the II can interfere with the viewfinder "hump" of some cameras, so is provided with two different knobs, which the user can change out.

The II has a "dual rotational axis" design. There are two planes of rotation built into the lens. You can rotate the entire lens on camera to align tilt and/or shift, as needed... AND/OR the second plane of rotation allows you to quickly set the tilt and shift in or out of alignment with each other, as needed. The original only has a single plane of rotation, to allow entire lens be aligned as needed on the camera. It doesn't have the second plane... BUT it is possible to have the lens disassembled so that the tilt and shift movements can be aligned (normally the lens comes with them unaligned). Some users do that themselves, but it's recommended to be done professionally since there can be shimming involved to assure proper alignment of the optical elements.

All three of the original TS-E lenses were the "single axis type": TS-E 24mm f/3.5L, TS-E 45mm f/2.8 and TS-E 90mm f/2.8.

All five of the expanded and current line of TS-E lenses are "dual axis": TS-E 17mm f/4L, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, TS-E 50mm f/2.8L Macro, TS-E 90mm f/2.8L Macro, and TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro.

All the "Macro" TS-E are capable of 1:2 (half life size) magnification. If I recall correctly, the original 90mm was able to do about 1:4, while the 45mm was only able to do about 1:5... however I've used both of them for close-up work, both with and without extension tubes.

The original TS-E 24mm focuses as close as 1 foot, but that only renders 1:7 magnification. The II is able to do 1:3. To be honest I don't recall ever using my 24mm for close-ups, but it's possible.

I know the II uses an 8-blade aperture with curved blades. I don't recall what the blade count is in the original, but I'm sure they aren't curved. So the II has potential for nicer bokeh, though the original does pretty well too and neither lens produces particularly strong background blur effects.

Is the II worth the extra expense? $1900 versus $750 to $850 for the original, used? Only you can say. If you will be using it a lot, I'd say the II may be worth the extra.... especially if it will be a money maker for you shooting architecture or something. It also might matter the camera you are using it upon... For example, if I were using it with the 50MP Canon 5DS-R, which is very demanding of lenses, I'd probably want the II. But for use on lower resolution FF or crop sensor cameras, the original might be just fine.

The TS-E lenses tend to hold their value pretty well, until a new version is released. The original TS-E 24mm dropped significantly in price when the II first came available several years ago, so has already seen much of the depreciation that will occur. In fact, I think the TS-E 24mm II price has "settled" a little, too... if I remember correctly, it was around $2100 initially. (The more recently introduced TS-E 50mm and 90mm "L/Macro" are both $2200... while the still excellent TS-E 45mm and 90mm they replaced sold new for $1400.)

Because they are fairly specialized lenses, there is almost always an active market of used copies.... especially among the older models that have been available for some time. I suspect a lot of pros buy them for a specific job and then sell the lens off when it's completed. There may be some experimentation with them in the advanced amateur market, too.

There is a very comprehensive review of the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx There isn't a similar review of the original, but there are some comparison test shots done with both versions, within this review. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens.aspx#Flare shows comparison of the CA and flare effects of both lenses (as well as some other Canon lenses). Again, I want to emphasize that the original isn't "bad".... but the II is pretty amazing, showing almost no CA or flare at all.