24 ts-e vs. 24 1.4

[Jonathan]

Firstly I am no where near purchasing any of these lenses. I am just thinking of ways to complete my setup. With a 200 2.8 and 500 4(soon) and a 24. Sound good?

Basically I have found reviews of both of the 24's and they are both exceptional. I just can't see why you would get the 24 1.4 over the ts-e as they are the same price. Aside from the aperature and af/mf what is the difference? I am thinking with the 24 ts-e I will be open to alot more possiblities if I decide to venture into some macro or heaven for bid landscape:)

[Rudi]

The 24 ts-e is not a lens that you would use for casual shooting, Jonathan. While you *could* use it if you wanted, the 24L would be a much better choice for normal shooting. Where the 24 ts-e comes in is when you want to shoot deliberately, on a tripod, and actually use the ts-e capabilities to their fullest.

The 24 ts-e loses out quite a bit in max aperture, and that is why I think there needs to be a distinction! If you are absolutely SURE that you will never need to shoot any wider than f/3.5 at 24mm (in general shooting), then the ts-e just might be for you, BUT... f/3.5 is a LOT SLOWER than f/1.4!

You might really need both! :D

[Jonathan]

The 24 ts-e is not a lens that you would use for casual shooting, Jonathan. While you *could* use it if you wanted, the 24L would be a much better choice for normal shooting. Where the 24 ts-e comes in is when you want to shoot deliberately, on a tripod, and actually use the ts-e capabilities to their fullest.

The 24 ts-e loses out quite a bit in max aperture, and that is why I think there needs to be a distinction! If you are absolutely SURE that you will never need to shoot any wider than f/3.5 at 24mm (in general shooting), then the ts-e just might be for you, BUT... f/3.5 is a LOT SLOWER than f/1.4!

You might really need both! :D

Thanks rudi. I understand with the ts-e I will be losing out on some automation like focus and exposure. I honestly don't see myself shooting at greater than 3.5. I usually don't like the isolated DOF. If I want isolation i will slap on the 200. Of course as I have learned there is never certiantly when it comes to lens selection. especially when they are both L's covering the same range:rolleyes: :D

[Rudi]

As long as you understand that the 24 ts-e will be a VERY MUCH MORE "deliberate" lens to shoot with, for lack of a better word. While that is not always a bad thing, you want to make sure that this is what you want - how often are you going to be using the tilt/shift function of the lens (especially a 24mm lens, since you mention macro work, where the 45 or 90mm might be better), compared to every day shooting? How often will you want to use the tilt/shift for landscapes? At 24mm, the DOF is large enough by the time you stop down to f/8 for most things, so this is another thing you have to weigh up.

Just presenting the other side of the coin... :)

[Jonathan]

As long as you understand that the 24 ts-e will be a VERY MUCH MORE "deliberate" lens to shoot with, for lack of a better word. While that is not always a bad thing, you want to make sure that this is what you want - how often are you going to be using the tilt/shift function of the lens (especially a 24mm lens, since you mention macro work, where the 45 or 90mm might be better), compared to every day shooting? How often will you want to use the tilt/shift for landscapes? At 24mm, the DOF is large enough by the time you stop down to f/8 for most things, so this is another thing you have to weigh up.

Just presenting the other side of the coin... :)

Very much appreciated rudi and quite honestly I have never used a tilt/shift. I still have alot of research and a lot of time before I even consider these lenses so I will let you know;)

[Kevin]

From my understanding (which is limited re: TS lenses) the 24 is more used for architectural shooting. For macro, I've heard great things about the 90. Though I love manual focus lenses, if it were me, I'd sure be tempted by the practicality of the 24/1.4

[Jonathan]

From my understanding (which is limited re: TS lenses) the 24 is more used for architectural shooting. For macro, I've heard great things about the 90. Though I love manual focus lenses, if it were me, I'd sure be tempted by the practicality of the 24/1.4

Thanks Kevin and to be honest I am in the VERY early stages of research here. Heck I am even tossing around the idea of the 24-70(never owned a zoom). What I was saying with the macro was more DOF control. I am more thinking sharp detail from foreground to background with landscapes that the TS would offer. Yeah the longer focal lengths would be better for macro... Are all the canon TS's of the same quality more or less?

[Rudi]

Are all the canon TS's of the same quality more or less?

Yes. :)

[Jonathan]

Yes. :)

Hmm..food for thought. I was initially at the 24 simply because of the L designation. To be completely honest I dont even know why I am looking at these lenses as I dont shoot landscapes or macro:D

check out the DOF in this bad boy...F8
http://www.pbase.com/image/36032074

[mdephoto]

Jonathan, I own a 24 ts, a 24 - 70 f2.8L and a 24 - 105 f4L and my suggestion to you is that you take a look at the the 24 - 105 as a potential first lens given what you say your interest are. The 24 ts is a neat lens, but you really need to be sure that it is going to fit what you are going to do with it -- while I have one I don't use it extensively -- I use my 24-105 a lot more and thus think it would make a much better first lens. Just my two cents worth here.....

[cindyflood]

Are all the canon TS's of the same quality more or less?

I have not found that all are the same quality. I have owned all three. I still have the 90 T-SE. The 90 T-SE is fantastic. I carry it with me everywhere. It is great for macro, with or without tubes. The tilt can increase or decrease DOF. The 24 T-SE is the only L designated tilt/shift lens. It worked well for my architectural jobs. Some find it unsatisfactory for landscape because of poor edge/corner sharpness (especially if used on full frame). There is also copy difference acccording to what I have read. The 45 T-SE is a nice lens. You just have to have a purpose for it. It works especially well for product shots. I used to put the 2X on it and shoot panoramas. It worked well for that.
The 24 T-SE is a bulky lens. I don't think you would be happy with it for a carry-around. It also is slow and manual. I think you would be much better served by the 24-105L IS. It is a fantastic lens. It is still slow, but the IS helps in low-light situations. It is very sharp and has AF, plus you get the flexible reach.

[Rudi]

Jonathan,

If you are seriously considering a zoom, the 24-70L would be my choice over the 24-105L. Don't get me wrong - they are both very good, and I have used both of them extensively on a full-frame 5D (dad owns the 24-205, I have the 24-70).

If you are used to shooting with primes, the 24-70L is optically superior to the longer zoom (makes senses, doesn't it? :)). There's not a huge difference, but the f/2.8 max aperture, combined with the better optical performance, will always outweigh the benefit of IS for me (especially at those shorter focal lengths).

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

If you are seriously considering a zoom, the 24-70L would be my choice over the 24-105L. Don't get me wrong - they are both very good, and I have used both of them extensively on a full-frame 5D (dad owns the 24-205, I have the 24-70).

If you are used to shooting with primes, the 24-70L is optically superior to the longer zoom (makes senses, doesn't it? :)). There's not a huge difference, but the f/2.8 max aperture, combined with the better optical performance, will always outweigh the benefit of IS for me (especially at those shorter focal lengths).

Thanks Rudi, I know I would much prefer the 24-70. Still not sure on the zoom idea though...I have time:D ;)