24mm Mk II TS-E Problem

[mikegml]

Bought a Mk I 24mm TS-E months ago and liked it very much. I liked it enough to have bought the Mk II which arrived last week. (Sold the Mk I).

First thing I did with the Mk I was to test it against my 17-40 (at 24mm obviously) I'd read many comments saying it was a poor performer and some saying it was ok. I found it to be 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 every account you'll read is a stellar performer, significantly better than the Mk I. So on arrival the first thing I did was to test it against my 17-40 expecting to be very impressed.

Unfortunately I wasn’t impressed. Comparing many shots both wall chart shots and real world shots, my TS-E is 'fractionally' sharper than my 17-40 and 'slightly' less distorted in the corners, and that's about it. It’s difficult to spot any difference without viewing at 100% so small is the difference.

Remember this TS-E is supposed to be a superb 24mm even without its T+S functions, better even than the dedicated 24mm 1.4 L but my copy barely improves upon my 17-40. In fact it only just betters my old MK I TS-E.

I’ve posted on other forums with people saying the TS-E can do so much more than the 17-40! I know that, I’m not comparing the capabilities of the lenses. If the TS-E can't outperform my 17-40 as a 'straight on' 24mm then I'm not consoled by the fact that it can do many things the 17-40 can't do.

So, let me ask anyone who has these two lenses, how much better is your TS-E as a straight 24mm than your 17-40? slightly better? much better? or as another experienced user posted in another forum his TS-E was ‘way better corner to corner’ it’s somewhat subjective I know but your opinions would be interesting.

I won’t be posting examples, I’ve done that elsewhere and unless you can download the shots it’s difficult to compare.

[neuroanatomist]

Haven't owned a 17-40L. My TS-E 24L II is noticeably sharper than my 16-35/2.8L II, although the difference was less evident with both at f/8 (the 16-35 improves substantially, the TS-E is already excellent wide open.

If you're within the return window, consider an exchange (or buy a second copy to compare then return the first).

[Sean Setters]

When both lenses are wide open, you should see some improvement (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=486&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0) in the corners of the TS-E 24mm L II compared to EF 17-40mm f/4 L (both in sharpness and lack of vignetting).

However, as Neuro said, the difference at f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3) would be harder to notice, especially in real-world situations.

I don't think the TS-E 24mm L II's value lay in its image quality (in comparison to other L lenses). I certainly wouldn't give up AF to get a marginal improvement in IQ under most shooting conditions; however, the tilt-shift ability of the TS-E 24 is why it's worth its hefty price tag to many. Shooting architecture without a tilt-shift requires a lot of compromises, while a tilt-shift lens is the perfect tool for the job.

[mikegml]

Thanks.

I did comparisons at a range of apertures and as you'd expect both lenses improve the more you stop down, however if anything the 17-40 moves closer to the TS-E.

I'd probably be happy with the TS-E as it was if it weren't for every review, especially the one on this site telling me how amazing the TS-E is wide open (which is what I'll be shooting at much of the time) and how it even edges out the dedicated 1.4 24mm L.

I've already returned the lens for another one.

[neuroanatomist]

...both lenses improve the more you stop down, however if anything the 17-40 moves closer to the TS-E.

That's what I'd expect. Even inexpensive lenses like the 50/1.8 and 18-55 kit lenses sharpen up a lot at f/8. Much of what you're paying for with more expensive lenses is sharpness at wide apertures. While the 17-40 is not cheap as lenses go, it's cheaper than most L lenses and it's wide open performance isn't stellar.

[mikegml]

it's wide open performance isn't stellar.

Which is why I'm none too pleased with the TS-E which 'is' supposed to be excellent wide open yet I see little difference between my two examples.

Suppose I'll have to wait and see what the replacement TS-E is like.

[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 on this forum and others led me to expect too much. Have no doubt the TS-E at 24 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.