Canon 24mm TS-E Problem ?

[mikegml]

Bought a Mk I 24mm TS-E a few months back, liked it very much, I do a lot of city/architectural/pano stuff. I liked it enough to have bought the Mk II which arrived yesterday, (sold the Mk I).

First thing I did when I got the Mk I was to test it against my 17-40 (set at 24mm obviously), didn't really know what to expect, I'd read many comments saying it was a very poor performer and quite a few saying it was ok. I found it to be very close in performance to the 17-40, close enough that I couldn't tell which was which unless I pixel peeped, I was happy enough.

The Mk II by virtually every account you'll read is a stellar performer, significantly better than the Mk I, indeed it's thought by some to be the best Canon 24mm even without its T+S capabilities. So obviously the first thing I did was to test it again against my 17-40 expecting I'll admit to be very impressed.

I'll get to the point, the 17-40 (at 24mm obviously) is better at every aperture, especially at larger apertures not much difference at smaller ones To say I'm disappointed is a massive understatement. The TS-E just can't quite match the sharpness or contrast of the 17-40. In particular I'm puzzled that the TS-E is worst in the corners where you'd think the opposite. I don't think the lens is obviously faulty, it looks and feels perfect, but I have no other explanation.

The test shots were obviously tripod mounted and shot at just four apertures 3.5, (f4 for the 14-40) 5.6, 8 and 11. I've not used any tilt/shift movements yet, it's just a straight comparison as a 24mm lens. I've repeated the test three times with some variation in results but with the 17-40 being better each time. I'll be taking more test shots tomorrow and will hopefully come to more of a definite conclusion.

I'm not sure what to do next if the results are the same which I assume they will be. Send it back to the dealer? (respectable dealer from whom I also bought my 6D and 17-40) Send it to Canon? My worst nightmare is Canon saying it performs within tolerance or similar. I definitely wouldn't keep it as it performs at present, I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect at least a noticeable improvement over the 14-40 as a minimum.

Any advice or suggestions appreciated.

[Glenn NK]

I have the Mark II version; using the second copy.

The first one was tested for CA by comparing with my 24-105 at 24 mm FL; the 24-105 was better (which was shocking). I shot into some leaves with a bright cloudy sky as background - very noticeable fringing.

Took it back and obtained a second one which is OK.

The image quality with the second one seems to be very good, but admittedly I have not compared it to anything else.

And no, you are not being unreasonable in sending it back to the dealer. BTW this is the main reason I don't buy camera gear on line - the shop I use exchanged it without asking one question or suggesting I should check it again.

Glenn

[mikegml]

Thanks. I've read elsewhere that sending it back to the dealer is the better move. Sending it to Canon may result in it being returned as I said in my post as 'within tolerance' after which you're stuck with it.

[Glenn NK]

In addition, it will take far less time to go through the dealer than Canon.

[mikegml]

I've shot numerous wall chart comparisons an also some 'real world' shots finally. Here's a few real world shots shot wide open which is what I'd be shooting at half the time, though smaller apertures are pretty similar. Ignore the composition, these are just comparison shots, I merely shot a series from wide open to f/11 then changed lenses. Note the 17-40 gives a wider angle of view than the TS-E but it's not set wider, it's exactly 24mm.

There's little difference between the lenses for me to justify the amazing reviews this TS-E gets. I don't think they're wrong I just assume I've a poor copy.

Well, I will upload a few pictures if I can work out how to do it!

Well, I've worked out how to upload pics but it seems that only upload 'small' plus they upload horizontal when the shots are vertical so I can't see the point of uploading, thanks for your assistance

[Glenn NK]

I think that the size of file you can upload to this site is likely not large enough to be able to evaluate.

I use:

https://www.box.net/

and for the number of files I have posted, it's free.

It's also one of the sites wherein you enter a password, it rates the password security as you type it in.

[ajohnw]

I use this one for large files. Things are added if people also pay but free membership is ok for this sort of use. Used it for several years and no nags emails spam or anything else. Just delete my name to get to the home page and register

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw

The only rule is nothing related to selling only pictures to share with others.

John
-

[mikegml]

Thanks, I think you'd need to download any pics so that you can compare them at 100%.

I've uploaded six photos to my Flickr stream. They are labelled so you can see which photo is which, not sure if others can download them or not, let me know?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/48579670@N02/

[Glenn NK]

I can't seem to download them, but if they're anything but full size RAW or JPEG SOOD (straight out of camera), they won't be of much use to evaluate.

[mikegml]

Ok, I've also uploaded the test shots to 'one drive'. I 'think' you can download and edit these shots.

http://1drv.ms/1zpF1Hd

[Glenn NK]

Apparently one must join "one drive" to have access?

[mikegml]

Thanks.

You can be sent an email invitation to view and also edit, tho' the shots should be 'public' view-able by anyone. Anyway I've returned the lens to the dealer for another copy now.

I not sure my copy is a bad one to be honest, but when the TS-E is lauded as the best 24 in the Canon range superior to even the dedicated 1.4 24mm you tend to expect something a bit special.

Here's a couple of edge of frame crops which give a pretty good comparison with the 17-40. The TS-E is obviously better but is it that much better?

Both shots wide open. As the lenses are stopped down the 17-40 gets closer to the TS-E.

[Glenn NK]

Mike:

The EXIF data seems to indicate that the same f/stop wasn't use for both images?

One feature of the TSE, is that the centre is at its best at f/3.5 (wide open); very few lenses exhibit this. I often shoot at f/3.5 because I quite often use it after sunset.

G

[ajohnw]

These are only an indication really but if you look at this you will see that the lens has a lot of fall of at the corners and some at the edge. Also that it picks up a lot at F5.6. Best even performance is F8 - F11 but like all lenses there will still be drop off at the corners.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._3p5_tse_c10/3

You might notice that the worst drop off at the corners is wide open.The reason for this fall off is lower down the page - vignetting - which is fairly severe in my opinion at 2.3 stops wide open and more acceptable at F5.6. - 1.7 stops but personally I like to see 1 stop or less. Looks like this gets worse when the lens is shifted, see the next page. While soft correction sounds great this effectively means loss of dynamic range.

John
-

[mikegml]

Thanks.

Both were shot wide open, which is f3.5 for the TS-E and f4 for the 17-40. I shoot the 17-40 wide open a lot and would do the same with TS-E.

The crops were taken from the far left hand side 'centre' of the image, the TS-E looks even better relative to the 17-40 if you look at any of the corners of the image, which of course it should.

I chose the left centre to compare because it has a pretty good range of detail. The TS-E of course is supposed to be superb wide open while no great claims are made for the 17-40 wide open.

I don't think the TS-E is bad but I'm not impressed with it and my definition (subjective) of excellent wide open performance isn't what I see here, maybe I'm expecting too much?

The graphs of the TS-E look real pretty and of course they do tell you something, I know you can measure these things, but visually they tell you nothing. You can't translate the graphs visually to what you would see with your eyes hence a visual comparison is IMHO way better and meaningfull.

[Glenn NK]

Thanks.

Both were shot wide open, which is f3.5 for the TS-E and f4 for the 17-40. I shoot the 17-40 wide open a lot and would do the same with TS-E.

The crops were taken from the far left hand side 'centre' of the image, the TS-E looks even better relative to the 17-40 if you look at any of the corners of the image, which of course it should.

I chose the left centre to compare because it has a pretty good range of detail. The TS-E of course is supposed to be superb wide open while no great claims are made for the 17-40 wide open.

I don't think the TS-E is bad but I'm not impressed with it and my definition (subjective) of excellent wide open performance isn't what I see here, maybe I'm expecting too much?

The graphs of the TS-E look real pretty and of course they do tell you something, I know you can measure these things, but visually they tell you nothing. You can't translate the graphs visually to what you would see with your eyes hence a visual comparison is IMHO way better and meaningful.

Mike:

The EXIF data on the images suggest the first image was at f/4, the second at f/5.6.

And no, the differences that charts and graphs show don't always translate into actual image differences that are dramatic.

Glenn

[ajohnw]

Thanks.

Both were shot wide open, which is f3.5 for the TS-E and f4 for the 17-40. I shoot the 17-40 wide open a lot and would do the same with TS-E.

The crops were taken from the far left hand side 'centre' of the image, the TS-E looks even better relative to the 17-40 if you look at any of the corners of the image, which of course it should.

I chose the left centre to compare because it has a pretty good range of detail. The TS-E of course is supposed to be superb wide open while no great claims are made for the 17-40 wide open.

I don't think the TS-E is bad but I'm not impressed with it and my definition (subjective) of excellent wide open performance isn't what I see here, maybe I'm expecting too much?

The graphs of the TS-E look real pretty and of course they do tell you something, I know you can measure these things, but visually they tell you nothing. You can't translate the graphs visually to what you would see with your eyes hence a visual comparison is IMHO way better and meaningfull.

I think that they can give people some idea of what they will get if they compare them on lenses they have. To be honest on this lens after looking at this test which is a pretty good one I'm inclined to feel using a miss spelled uk expression that on FF Canon are taking the hiss. One of he main aspects of a a tilt shift lens is that it must have a much larger than usual image circle coming out of the back so excessive fall of at the edges shouldn't really be apparent especially untilted. On the other hand it does offer good even performance at F8 - F11. It my not be possible to do this when tilted at wide apertures. On the other hand I find it surprising that it is as it is. There are some shots posted on the following page which show what the charts suggest. The lens will be an entirely different kettle of fish on crop. Personally that makes me wonder about a number of things.

John
-

[mikegml]

Mike:

The EXIF data on the images suggest the first image was at f/4, the second at f/5.

Glenn

Yeah, you're right, I posted the wrong crops these were the second shots in the comparison series. However, the wide open shots are very close to these.

[mikegml]

Actually I was only half wrong the 17-40 is indeed wide open at f4, but the TS=E is at 5.6. Very little if any difference to wide open at 3.5 having had a look.

Doesn't change anything really. As ajohnw says the massive image circle of the TS-E should give abetter showing here.

I await to be amazed by my replacement copy of the TS=E.

[mikegml]

A brief update for what it's worth.

The replacement 24mm TS-E arrived a few days ago. I shot a series of comparison test shots with my 17-40 as before and the new TS-E is pretty much the same as the first one. I was half expecting this as I suspected there was nothing wrong with the first one.

I guess my interpretation of the reviews of the Mk II TS-E led me to expect too much. Have no doubt the TS-E is always better than the 17-40 (at 24mm) but not as much as I expected/wanted.

So, nothing left to do now but to get out there and shoot.