Canon 17mm/4 TS-E tilt/shift on Leica M..

[alexander]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

what is the problem with Canon 24mm shift regarding aperture on the M? Is there no solution like for the nikon lenses? via novoflex?

[dierk]

It seems to me that Novoflex does make an adapter that controls the aperture of Nikon lenses mounted onto a Leica M for lenses that don't have an aperture ring. (Nothing like this for EOS lenses) I bet it just pushes the stop down linkage mechanism to change f stops.

......

 

The Nikkor 24mm PCE is very special, it is not a G-lens!!

There is no mechanical control of the aperture like in the G-lenses. It is like Canon EOS a 100% electronically controld aperture - no chance with any mechanical adapter.

 

dierk

[alexander]

The Nikkor 24mm PCE is very special, it is not a G-lens!!

There is no mechanical control of the aperture like in the G-lenses. It is like Canon EOS a 100% electronically controld aperture - no chance with any mechanical adapter.

 

dierk

 

OK understand

Thanks

[dierk]

Does the Nikon 24mm PC behave like any other Nikon G lens in regard of adjusting the aperture?

Than it should be no prob with novoflex adapter?

 

Why do some people not like the Nikon 24mm PC so much compared to Canon?....

 

Regards Alexander

Alexander, I just noticed:

you wrote 24mm PC - I don't know of a 24mm/2.8 PC lens, mine is the 24mm/2.8 PCE, the E stands for electronic (as far as I understand).

 

I also own the elder 85mm/2.8 Micro PC lens - not the new PCE! - and this PC lens is fully mechanic and so no problem with any adapter. I love it!!

[dierk]

the weather is OK today for a comparison of

 

Leica Super-Elmar 18mm/3.8

vs. Canon 17mm/4 TS-E on Leica M9

 

• images made with f/8,
  
• focus a bit before infinity,
  
• hand held (so the 2 images are not exact at the same spot)
  
• minimal PP with LR4, only sharpening 45,1,30,0
  

 

Canon 17mm/4 TS-E on Leica M9

lens in normal position, no tilt or shift

(full size!)

 

1:1 crop of center

 

1:1 crop of lower right edge

 

 

what do you think?

 

dierk

[dierk]

2. part

because of the limitation of images in one post:

 

Leica Super-Elmar 18mm/3.8

vs. Canon 17mm/4 TS-E on Leica M9

 

• images made with f/8,
  
• focus a bit before infinity,
  
• hand held (so the 2 images are not exact at the same spot)
  
• minimal PP with LR4, only sharpening 45,1,30,0
  

 

Leica Super-Elmar 18mm/3.8

(full size!)

 

 

 

 

 

what do you think?

 

dierk

[RobertJRB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow,

 

You did exactly the test I was looking forward to for a really long time!

Thanks a lot!!!

 

Also u made it a lot harder for me I was thinking of selling my 18 SE for the 17 TSE with a canon 5D2 or 6D body.

 

But it would mean I had to bring 2 body's with me when I want something wider than 28mm. An extra wide lens for the leica, or keeping the 18 SE and adding a 17 TSE is out of the question because of funds.

 

So an option would be trading my M9P for the M240 to have LV and use the 17 TSE on that.

 

Reading this topic I see thats no option since u would need a canon body to change the aperture. In that case I rather have a 5D2 or 6D with its advantages for architecture photography (remote flash system, wifi, scrollable LV, cheaper assasiores, bracketing things, ect)

 

So it would be an easy pick, but looking at your results above I wonder how big the different in quality would be after correcting the 18 SE shot in C1 pro.

 

Looks like there is some room for the leica.

 

Could u also post a example with the Canon shifted, and the leica tilted back and corrected in post?

Would be really great!!!

[RobertJRB]

ps, after looking more carefully at the pictures.

 

The Canon seems soft in the center, and gaining more sharpness towards the edges. Is this something of the lens self? Or is it a usererror?

[rscheffler]

I would prefer to see the comparison done on the M240 where live view would guarantee accurate focus with the TS-E. There is always the chance that the adapter has slightly inaccurate registration and that manual focusing based on the lens's focusing scale is no longer perfectly accurate. I definitely found this to be the case with the M to NEX Novoflex adapter when I was trying various M mount lenses on NEX cameras. For example, if I set focus at the infinity hard stop, focus was actually past infinity and there was considerable sharpness degradation. I guess here, focus bracketing with the M9 would be a good idea.

 

That said, I also don't doubt this is probably an accurate representation based on my own experience with the TS-E 17. It's a really good lens, but I don't expect it to outperform a Leica (or Zeiss) M mount lens.

 

I agree with Robert - the real value of the 17 is when shifted vs. a software corrected image from the 18. It would be interesting to see how much that equalizes the results.

 

BTW, thanks for posting these!

[wlaidlaw]

Dierk,

 

Thanks for posting those images. I think for most people, having to carry an aperture setting body would be too much trouble. I personally would stick to the FD versions of the Canon TS lenses.

 

There is an interesting review of TS lenses here.35mm Shift Lens Review: Nikon v Olympus v Zeiss Sadly no Canon included in the comparison. The Zeiss 35 Distagon 35PC beats the others easily but with shift only and no tilt, it is a one trick pony.

 

I am thinking of getting either an Arax 35mm Tilt/Shift or a Hartblei 80mm Super Rotator in R mount. I would like to get the Zeiss lensed 40mm Hartblei Super Rotator but it is €5395, which I cannot possibly justify, especially having bought an M240 and a couple of R lenses.

 

Wilson

[insomnia]

The comparison (especially the center crops) is of no use. Look at the resolution of the Canon at the upper left edge in - and then back at the center. There is definitely something wrong, be it the focus or the lens.

[RobertJRB]

Dierk,

 

Thanks for posting those images. I think for most people, having to carry an aperture setting body would be too much trouble. I personally would stick to the FD versions of the Canon TS lenses.

 

There is an interesting review of TS lenses here.35mm Shift Lens Review: Nikon v Olympus v Zeiss Sadly no Canon included in the comparison. The Zeiss 35 Distagon 35PC beats the others easily but with shift only and no tilt, it is a one trick pony.

 

I am thinking of getting either an Arax 35mm Tilt/Shift or a Hartblei 80mm Super Rotator in R mount. I would like to get the Zeiss lensed 40mm Hartblei Super Rotator but it is €5395, which I cannot possibly justify, especially having bought an M240 and a couple of R lenses.

 

Wilson

 

Unfortunately there is only one option if u want wider than 24mm shift, and that one comes in a canon body.

So the others aren't really an option.

 

 

The comparison (especially the center crops) is of no use. Look at the resolution of the Canon at the upper left edge in - and then back at the center. There is definitely something wrong, be it the focus or the lens.

 

Strange thing is, the left side of the building is going towards the camera. The right side of in line with the center.

Both edges are sharper than the center. I can't really see what went wrong.

 

Overall, besides the sharpness, I like the 18 SE picture a lot better.

[AlanG]

It looks like the sample image from the 17 is front focused. I have found that accurate focusing with this lens is critical for maximum detail and is trickier than some may think. The distance scale goes past infinity so it is hard to locate an exact spot by scale focusing... until you are pretty experienced with the lens. It also is hard to judge sharpness via the optical viewfinder and I try to use magnified live view to set my focus.

 

FWIW here is a link to one of my typical shots using the 17 TSE. I am using a fair amount of lateral shift to try to stretch out the front of the building. So it gets a little soft at the extreme right edge. This was shot hand held while leaning over a wall. I applied a fair amount of unsharp masking. I don't see any distortion in the image and the illumination is very even.

 

To download a full res version (original file) you'll need to enter this password: TSE after clicking on "Download."

 

17TSE Sample.jpg | Alan Goldstein

[mblaze]

I can see how the shift feature would be usable on the M with such lenses, but what about tilting? I understand (still waiting for my M) that the M live view can only zoom in on the center of the image. This would seem to make critical focus while titled effectively impossible.

[wlaidlaw]

I can see how the shift feature would be usable on the M with such lenses, but what about tilting? I understand (still waiting for my M) that the M live view can only zoom in on the center of the image. This would seem to make critical focus while titled effectively impossible.

 

I am hoping that Image Shuttle software, which we will get with the MF Grip, will permit live view on a laptop screen. That would enable us to focus where we like. I agree it is a pity that we cannot scroll the zoom patch, like I can on my little Olympus EP-2.

 

Wilson

[Guest tanks]

I am hoping that Image Shuttle software, which we will get with the MF Grip, will permit live view on a laptop screen. That would enable us to focus where we like. I agree it is a pity that we cannot scroll the zoom patch, like I can on my little Olympus EP-2.

 

Wilson

 

Yeah, my pet peeve about the M live view so far.

[RobertJRB]

It looks like the sample image from the 17 is front focused. I have found that accurate focusing with this lens is critical for maximum detail and is trickier than some may think. The distance scale goes past infinity so it is hard to locate an exact spot by scale focusing... until you are pretty experienced with the lens. It also is hard to judge sharpness via the optical viewfinder and I try to use magnified live view to set my focus.

 

FWIW here is a link to one of my typical shots using the 17 TSE. I am using a fair amount of lateral shift to try to stretch out the front of the building. So it gets a little soft at the extreme right edge. This was shot hand held while leaning over a wall. I applied a fair amount of unsharp masking. I don't see any distortion in the image and the illumination is very even.

 

To download a full res version (original file) you'll need to enter this password: TSE after clicking on "Download."

 

17TSE Sample.jpg | Alan Goldstein

 

Thanks for the example!

 

Still, looking at your picture, It looks a bit to me (trough lot less than the examples above) the center of the image is less sharp than the direct area around it. The edge of the building looks sharper than the center. For example the facade on the ground floor compared to the one on the 4th or 5th floor (european way, thought in the US they count the ground floor as first floor?)

[AlanG]

Thanks for the example!

 

Still, looking at your picture, It looks a bit to me (trough lot less than the examples above) the center of the image is less sharp than the direct area around it. The edge of the building looks sharper than the center. For example the facade on the ground floor compared to the one on the 4th or 5th floor (european way, thought in the US they count the ground floor as first floor?)

 

I can't say that I really can tell. Consider that I am using a lateral shift to the right so the left corner of the building probably represents close to the center of the lens. These kinds of lenses must have very complicated correction and you can't expect it to have the same sharpness characteristics as a flat field lens. Also consider that there are two rotating rings (one for tilt and one for shift) and a tilt mechanism that all must be aligned very accurately with minimal play despite having to move smoothly.

 

What it comes down to for me is this lens really works well for me and my clients. It saves me in some tough situations where I have limited vantage points and also gives me additional choices for compositions. As I said before despite having a lot of DOF, once you start pixel peeping you'll realize that critical focus is important and is easy to get it wrong and not notice until it is too late. The image looks fairly sharp in the viewfinder even when the focus is pretty far off.

 

A few years ago I was simply hoping to someday have a 20mm TSE since I previously used a 47mm on 6x9 film for a lot interiors and that has similar coverage of a 20mm on 35. I never dreamed a 17mm version that is so good would come out. This lens also handles flare quite well. At most I get a few small colored spots in the shot if I have some bright specular lights at the edge of the scene or just out of frame going across the front of the protruding glass. FWIW the 24mm version II TSE is better than this lens.

 

I rarely use the tilt as the focal length is so short that you can't really throw an area way out of focus for effect.

[RobertJRB]

I can't say that I really can tell. Consider that I am using a lateral shift to the right so the left corner of the building probably represents close to the center of the lens. These kinds of lenses must have very complicated correction and you can't expect it to have the same sharpness characteristics as a flat field lens. What it comes down to for me is this lens really works well for me and my clients. It saves me in some tough situations where I have limited vantage points and also gives me additional choices for compositions. As I said before despite having a lot of DOF, once you start pixel peeping you'll realize that critical focus is important and is easy to get wrong and not notice until it is too late. The image looks pretty sharp in the viewfinder even when the focus is pretty far off.

 

A few years ago I was simply hoping to someday have a 20mm TSE since I previously used a 47mm on 6x9 film for a lot interiors and that has similar coverage of a 20mm on 35. I never dreamed a 17mm version that is so good would have come out. FWIW the 24mm version II TSE is better than this lens.

 

I rarely use the tilt as the focal length is so short that you can't really throw an area way out of focus for effect.

 

Ok thanks, I missed the part u shifted to the side.

 

Have to say the results are really good and more than I would need for work.

I used to use the old canon 24 TSE mk1 and never was pleased with the results, this 17 is a big improvement.

 

I know the 24 mk2 is even better, but I really could use the exrta wide angle, and would be ok with the results of the 17 with a 1,4x converter for the times I need 24mm.

 

 

Still, beside the TSE being good, I find it hard to dismiss the 18 SE for this TSE. Seeing these results above only make it harder to decide. Like the 18 SE picture better, but the 17 TSE would make it all so much easier (no PP),

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

Using the Canon 5D Mark III along with DXO conversions I apply quite a bit more sharpening power than some might expect. (Radius is kept pretty low.)

 

For my work non shifting w/a lenses are not that useful. I'd have to use a 14mm or wider to correct perspective in post in order to get the same coverage as a shifted 17. And being an architectural photographer I find I almost always want to correct perspective or change geometry at shooting or in post - even recently from travel photos that I shot of ruins in Italy and just to straighten up street shots too. I have 4 tilt shift lenses and the old Nikon 28 and 35 PC lenses plus a Russian 55 shift lens that was made for the Kiev 6. I'd expect Canon to be updating the 45 TSE before long. I figure Canon won't be making a 20mm TSE or a 35mm TSE but I'd buy them in an instant if they were as good as the 24.

 

Years ago Leica said they'd be making a 30mm TS for the S2. I don't know what happened to that plan. Now that Leica has live view I would hope they will explore making some wide tilt shift lenses. But what will those cost and do they have a market for them? I think the fact that Canon knows it can sell these TSE lenses to a large market helps keep their prices "reasonable" despite what must require high R&D costs and complicated manufacturing and assembly.