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

[dierk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

to verify this, I made more tests today (still the same good weather)

 

For this test I made one picture in normal position, again no shift as before

and another one with the camera turned upside down (-180°)

 

Here are the 1:1 crops of the same region

 

Test: Canon 17mm TS-E on Leica M9 @ f/8 - 1:1 crop

Camera in normal position

 

 

this one with camera upside down,

it is the same object but the opposite corner of the lens and sensor!!

 

dierk

[dierk]

as Robert mentioned:

I have the 24mm Nikkor (had the 35mm PC long time befor and tried the 28mm PC), but this Canon 17mm TS-E simply is the widest you get get!

 

I would have bought Hartblei, but they are not at all that wide.

For stills and macro I will use my great Nikkor Micro 85mm/2.8 PC tilt/shift, for close distances with low DOF it is just ideal.

 

@AlanG:

I set the aperture on f/8 and focus close to infinity and as you know the lens, the DOF must be so wide, that there will be no problem with the focus (IMO). If your experiences are different, please let me know. The lens is new. BTW perfect image on you example (and many more in your gallery).

 

With the Liveview it will be more sure but still not so important, as I have to focus with my fixed f/8!

 

dierk

[insomnia]

to verify this, I made more tests today (still the same good weather)

 

For this test I made one picture in normal position, again no shift as before

and another one with the camera turned upside down (-180°)

 

Here are the 1:1 crops of the same region

 

dierk

 

Marginal difference, first is a little better I would say. However (as you quoted me) I was referring to the difference edge vs. center (center loses) in your first example.

[dierk]

If you want to use the 18mm Super-Elmar for this sort of architecture picture and adjust the verticals in PP, you will loose a lot of wide angle in PP!!

The only chance to get that wide, is to stitch, but that does not work on dynamic objects.

 

Here are the screen shots from the Super-Elmar 18mm made from street level:

 

uncorrected

 

and with correction in CS5

 

and here is the same position with the Canon 17mm TS-E

shifted!

again only sharpening in LR4 45,1,30,0

(click for full res.)

 

I have the impression, the center foreground is less sharp the the edges!

have fun!

dierk

[insomnia]

Dierk, I looked at the 17 TSE image and there is definitely something wrong. The center (lower part) is a lot less fine resolved as the rest which is really more than fine. It's easy to see if you scroll to the image from top to bottom and left to right (centered).

[AlanG]

I set the aperture on f/8 and focus close to infinity and as you know the lens, the DOF must be so wide, that there will be no problem with the focus (IMO). If your experiences are different, please let me know. The lens is new. BTW perfect image on you example (and many more in your gallery).

 

Your example is how it would look slightly tilted. Except it is mostly just in one area. You should not be having this issue if the lens tilt is locked on center. One likely possibility for tilt is your adapter is throwing the alignment off. Can you try it on a full frame Canon just to be sure? And shoot a building very squared up, not at an angle.

 

My 17, 24 and 45 are perfect in this regard as was my earlier 24. I can't say what the issue is but perhaps the lens is not perfectly aligned either optically or with the complex mount. Try tilting it back and forth a few times and lock it centered. DOF won't cover this. At least in the good parts of the shot you are seeing what the lens is capable of. There is a bit of moire that you could probably clean up with C1's moire tool.

 

It may be worth cataloging some more tests with it (bracket the focus in small steps shooting maybe 5 shots from 10 feet past infinity) to see if you can pinpoint exactly where the problem shows up. And then send it with those tests to Canon if you can't exchange it for another one. I've never understood if those distance markings are expected to be accurate considering there is a big range for "infinity."

 

Thanks for the compliment.

[henning]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very nice. I have the same lens, and just got the adapter last week. Unfortunately, it's a poorly made adapter and the lens doesn't seat correctly, so the shifts are at an angle when the detents are in place, so I have to move it slightly. I'm getting another adapter shortly. I also have the 24TSE II and the 90 TSE, as well as the old Nikkor 28 and 35 PC's and the even older Canon 35 TS. All work.

 

Handheld I can use the 28 and 35 PC's as their ergonomics are very good for that, and I've used them or earlier versions for 40 years that way, but the Canon lenses have to be put on a tripod. Quality is decent, especially the new 24 TSE and the 90 TSE. Shifting works well, but tilting isn't as good because you can't magnify for focussing anywhere except the middle. The Canon bodies won't be replaced, and besides, I need a Canon body to change aperture. The old Canon 35 TS is excellent; much better than the Nikon PC's, but 35mm isn't as much use as a wider lens.

 

Henning

[henning]

I've never understood if those distance markings are expected to be accurate considering there is a big range for "infinity."

 

There has to be a big range beyond infinity if you expect to be able to place infinity in any part of the picture when tilting. The geometry requires it.

 

Henning

[henning]

How was this one in regard performance?

 

Nikon A 28/3,5 PC-Nikkor

 

It's OK, but you can't shift beyond the stated image circle, which means about 7 or 8mm shift vertically. Of course, if you can manage open sky in the appropriate areas you're OK. The 35 PC behaves similarly. The Canon 35 TS can be shifted 12 mm vertically, and generally produces a lot better image quality than the Nikon.

 

I haven't ever tried the Zeiss 35 shift lens, but every other 35 shift lens doesn't measure up to the Canon. The Olympus 24 and Pentax 28 are also pointless at this time.

 

I've used various MF shift lenses as well. Some, like the Mamiya 50mm for 645 are fairly small and quite decent, but due to their focal lengths are a bit pointless on 35mm, and none that I have tried are as good as the best on the smaller format.

 

Henning

[AlanG]

There has to be a big range beyond infinity if you expect to be able to place infinity in any part of the picture when tilting. The geometry requires it.

 

Henning

 

Duh, I forgot about that because I almost never tilt. I do like the hard infinity stops on my Nikon PC lenses. Interesting what you say about the quality of the Canon 35mm t/s since I like my Nikon 35 PC and use it a lot for exterior views of homes and some interiors. Maybe I have an especially good one but I'd like to try a Canon one to compare it.

[wlaidlaw]

I have just ordered an ex-demo Hartblei 80mm/f2.8 Super Rotator in R mount. I do hope that Image Shuttle will have live view for focusing on parts of the image, not in the central zoom rectangle. I will have to bone up on using tilt shift lenses, since it is now 45 years since I did evening classes on using large format rail cameras and the Scheimpflug Principle.

 

Wilson

[dierk]

I will do some more tests today with open at f/4.

 

here is an interesting work on tilt/shift with this lens, worth reading IMO.

Tilt shift - the Canon TS-E 24mm 3.5L - a review

and the 17mm:

Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L

 

dierk

[dierk]

thanks Alan and thanks for the other interesting and helpful posts.

@ #46

I made another test today with f/4 open and locked shift and tilt. I made shots with distance set to

 

• 3m,
  
• in the middle between 3m and infinity,
  
• infinity
  
• and beyond infinity (off like the 3m mark).
  

 

The 3m looks OK. in the edges but getting bad towards the center! (see 1. picture below) The 3m and others look even worse.

 

I went back later and made tests with distance of about 2m and 1m. The 2m looks good in the center and bottom center and very bad on both sides. It seems to be no circular problem.

 

My problem is, that I don't a FF Canon body or know somebody with one.

Test: Canon 17mm TS-E on Leica M9 @ f/4 open

distance set between 3m and infinity

(click for full res.)

 

distance set to about 2m

 

what is wrong?

dierk

[dierk]

There has to be a big range beyond infinity if you expect to be able to place infinity in any part of the picture when tilting. The geometry requires it.

Henning

You can see it on the picture below and read more on this link from the #52

Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L

And here is the 800gr. Monster on the M9

made with Nex7 and Sony 30mm Macro lens

(click)

 

and this one made with the Nex7 and the Micro Nikkor 85mm/2.8 PC in tilted position.

 

dierk

[insomnia]

what is wrong?

dierk

 

Wow, that's weird!

[dierk]

I am not sure, if I have a problem with the lens or with the adapter - or if don't have a problem at all

 

As I did not find anybody with a FF Canon, I stitched 3 shots with diagonal shift in order to simulate a full frame and look into the corners. Distance set to infinity and f/4 open.

 

Does not look too bad for open f/4 for me.

Test: Canon 300D with Canon 17mm TS-E @ f/4

(click for full res. 6 MB)

 

dierk

[AlanG]

While I don't know how an adapter can throw off the lens the way your photos indicated, this new test seems to indicate the lens is working correctly. I bought some Nikon to EOS adapters in the past that I had to shim.

 

Perhaps you can take it to a camera store and simply shoot a few test shots using a full frame Canon. You should be able to judge very easily by simply using live view at 10x and moving the magnified area around.

 

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into this but I see way less color fringing/moire (railings in particular) on the 300D shots than on the M9 shots. As an architectural shooter I really do see a benefit to AA filters despite that C1 can help remove it.

[AlanG]

BTW, I was examining that photo and one of your neighbors seems to be paying special attention to all of the photography you have been doing into her windows.

 

It happens.

 

I once was shooting a large home and this girl was "mooning" me from the doorway but I didn't notice it until she was almost done.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rscheffler]

That's funny Alan!

 

If best wide open central sharpness on the M9 is with the lens set around 2m, then there is something off with the adapter. At least with my TS-E 17, I've found the leftmost end of the infinity "L" mark is pretty much bang on with my Canon cameras for "infinity" scenes such as your example above.

 

If you were to show me these photos without any information about cameras, adapters, lens used, and just said one was focused at 2m and the other at 3m, then I would tell you the results imply field curvature. I'm not sure how an adapter can suddenly induce field curvature-like effects, yet the lens works fine on a Canon camera.

 

If I have the chance and motivation, maybe I can try a test series with the lens on the 1DX. I don't have an EF-M adapter, so won't be able to try it on the M9.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dierk]

OK, no more booring buildings

 

stitch of 3 images: center, shift right and shift left

PP: Nik Silver Efex

 

Leica M9 with Canon 17mm TS-E tilt/shift

focus set on 3m

 

Leica M Monochrom with Canon 17mm TS-E tilt/shift

 

 

dierk