16-35mm f/4L IS vs. TS-E 17mm f/4L

Yes, I know this is like asking if one prefers apples or scallops. :rolleyes:

As I stated in the UWA lens thread, looking over my library less than 15% of my 16-35/2.8 shots are wider than f/4, and many of those are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than the extra stop of light. Accordingly, I just sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and I had planned on ordering the 16-35mm f/4L IS to replace it. But I got to thinking... Most of my shots with the 16-35/2.8 are of buildings or landscapes and are from a tripod; only a few shots have people in them, and those were generally opportunistic photos where the 16-35 was already on the camera, but 24mm would have been wide enough.

Granted, the TS-E 17mm is significantly more expensive, but ignoring that, I find myself thinking the TS-E 17mm would be a better choice for me. Anyone want to talk me out of it?

For the situations where you've been using the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II - I think the TS-E 17mm f/4 L would be the better choice. I've been seriously considering picking it up for my own personal kit (but other purchases keep getting in the way).

Go with the TS-E lens. :-)

Not that I have used any of these lenses, but I'll try:)
TS-E is heavier
Using filters is more difficult (and slower to set up?)
16-35 is better for walk around and opportunistic shots while the lens is already on the camera (even if that is only 15% of your shots - that's still some shots)
You already have a TS-E - would the 17mm open up that many more opportunities?

Another tough one. I am in a bit of the same situation as I start to think about my next lens the 16-35 f/4 IS is definitely being considered.

If your primary purpose is architecture, the TS-E makes sense.

However, I have to wonder if the benefit of having 4 stop IS and potentially not needing a tripod (as often) may be a significant factor when packing and hiking around with a couple young kids.

As I think about my kit, I am entertaining the idea of my core being the 16-35 IS, 24-70 II, and 70-200 II. If I wanted to travel "light" with two lenses I could take the 16-35 IS and 70-200 II. Both with IS and both 77 mm threads.

Just a thought. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the pros and cons of each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahab1372

Using filters is more difficult (and slower to set up?)

---

Great point, and the filter issue was a big negative in the past since there was really no way to put one on the TS-E 17, and I frequently use a 10-stop ND on my TS-E 24 as a 'people eraser'. But now there's the Wonderpana system, which mounts directly to the bayonet for the TS-E 17's lens cap. At $500 for the mount and 145mm 10-stop ND, it's not cheap...but it's at least possible, and seems not too difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahab1372

16-35 is better for walk around and opportunistic shots while the lens is already on the camera (even if that is only 15% of your shots - that's still some shots)

---

To clarify, 15% of my shots with the 16-35/2.8 were at apertures wider than f/4. Actually only a small percent of my overall shooting (maybe ~2%) has been with the 16-35/2.8. Definitely a niche lens for me, but sometimes you really need a UWA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahab1372

You already have a TS-E - would the 17mm open up that many more opportunities?

---

Perhaps. The 24mm lens is wonderful, but I find it's often not wide enough for urban architecture, where there's often no room to back up.

Thanks!

Based on what you have said, it sounds like the TS-E 17mm is the right choice. Just one question you probably know the answer to: Is the TS-E weather sealed? With the sliding surfaces it would seem difficult to seal. If it is not fully sealed, then that would cause me to rethink that decision (what is the likelihood that a non-sealed lens is going to damage my camera of an expensive lens?). If it sealed, then easier choice.

I would love to have the TS-E, but there is one thing that would push me more toward the 24 mm before the 17mm (I know that is not your problem)... and that is the filter issue. I understand your fix for the ND filter, but with landscapes - living without and adjustable GND would make the choice tough. Is there a solution for that?

Pat

Well... I guess it is weather sealed. According to Canon UK under the product description for the 17mm:

Robust build quality

Canon L-series lenses are built to withstand regular use in the most testing environments. Weather and dust seals provide added protection. A lens hood and pouch are also included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Another tough one. I am in a bit of the same situation as I start to think about my next lens the 16-35 f/4 IS is definitely being considered.

---

It's an excellent lens by all accounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

If your primary purpose is architecture, the TS-E makes sense.

However, I have to wonder if the benefit of having 4 stop IS and potentially not needing a tripod (as often) may be a significant factor when packing and hiking around with a couple young kids.

---

The majority of my UWA shots are architecture, a few landscapes, and only a very few with people.

But I can see the potential of the 16-35/4 IS for travel shots 'on the go', particularly in Europe, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

As I think about my kit, I am entertaining the idea of my core being the 16-35 IS, 24-70 II, and 70-200 II. If I wanted to travel "light" with two lenses I could take the 16-35 II and 70-200 II. Both with IS and both 77 mm threads.

---

Currently I have two 'travel kits'. For trips with family, I usually take just the 24-70 II and 70-300L (in a Lowepro Toploader Pro with a lens case). With the kids, I find that a 'general purpose' zoom is essential. My 'photo outing' kit was those two lenses plus the TS-E 24L II and 16-35/2.8L II, which all fit nicely in a Lowepro Flipside 300, with the RRS TQC-14 + BH-30 LR strapped to the outside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Just a thought. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the pros and cons of each.

---

The pros of the TS-E 17 are the movements...else, it's similar in IQ, more expensive and more cumbersome to use. For me, that's probably enough, I think...

Pat, the TS-E 17 and 24 L lenses are not weather sealed, despite what Canon UK might say on their website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Pat, the TS-E 17 and 24 L lenses are not weather sealed, despite what Canon UK might say on their website.

---

I thought I had read that it was not weather sealed, but was not sure. So I grabbed the first official Canon site from the search results thinking that would be authoritative enough. I guess not. I was a little skeptical when it was worded with the impression that all "L" lenses are weather sealed... which I know to be untrue.

If you are not in the rain or snow much, then probably not a problem for you. It would be an issue for me if I did not have an alternate sealed lens in the same range. Rotary seals work pretty well, but seals for linear motion tend not to work well such that debris and water can be dragged through them easier. So I would think TS-E's would be particularly pour at keeping water out with 100% certainty. But if you do not get it wet, then it is not an issue.

Sorry for the misinformation.

Pat

I would so love to have the 17 TS-E, it's a fantastic lens even without the mechanics behind it. Between it and the 24, I have a hard time deciding, especially since I'm not sure they would replace my regular architectural lens. (!?)

Since I shoot interiors all the time, you'd think it would be the perfect lens, but it's really not. I'm extremely time limited when shooting virtual tours, so by the time I'd have myself set up for one shot, I'd be halfway through the house with my 17-40. I can't say this about the 16-35/4L IS just yet as there's no Adobe Lens Profile for it!

Anyway, I've found I've gotten so good at shooting with the UWA I barely need to correct it for verticals - I even amaze myself sometimes. I hand hold 90% of my shots, and 90% of those are as wide as I can possibly get. Your typical realtor wants it to look like you can roller skate in the bathroom. I also have the Rokinon 14/2.8, but haven't started using it yet although I should. It's just sort of an interruption to my workflow if I plop in a different lens.

These pics were using the 17-40. Although I have no problem (mostly) keeping my verticals straight, eliminating the last little bit of distortion can be important (less on the verticals than horizontal), so I'm chomping at the bit for the Lens Profile!

The shots below were on a tripod - one of the few times I do this, but I was doing different exposures so we could see the bay - and the place was gigantic so I wanted consistent height in the virtual tour.

http://www.icophos.com/junk/stratford-4415.jpg

http://www.icophos.com/junk/stratford-4381.jpg

http://www.icophos.com/junk/Hudson2-9359.jpg
In this really cool Eichler shot you can see my reflection (oops!) as I squat and hand-hold. There was no HDR or anything else here, I never do that for tours.
http://www.icophos.com/junk/5d-6865.jpg
This was using the Rokinon - I was testing the available 5D profile, which I modified to work in RAW instead of just JPEG. You can see the impressive verticals all the way up to the very top, where it starts to lose it. I don't have this problem with the 17-40. Can't speak for the 16-35/4 just yet! I think with something this wide that's not too bad. So yes, I shoot as wide as I can all the time, where you say you don't. Hmmmm.

So, see how I didn't answer your question at all?

Why would I want to talk you out of the TS-E? Are you nuts? If you can afford it, I see no reason not to have it. However, I would certainly never be without something like the 16-35/4L IS. You can whip your camera right out of the bag and start shooting, with no thought as to initial setup or anything else. The TS-E is a different sort of animal entirely. The 16-35 is like a tasty sandwich at your favorite beach-side grill. The TS-E is like a 4 course meal at an expensive restaurant with an astounding panoramic view. You might have the sandwich more often and enjoy it every time, where the 4 course meal won't happen as often but is something to be savored and remembered. You plan for it and dress accordingly.

Let us know how it works out for you.

Not that it's anything the same, but I just got back from my Alaska cruise. I left my 16-35/2.8II home and took a rented Zeiss 15/2.8 instead. Although I haven't had time to review my work yet, carrying four lenses for three bodies meant manual-focusing the Z15 was a challenge. I doubt you'd let a TS17 hang from your shoulder etc., but the focus ring on the Z15 was constantly bumped out of place so I had to recheck every time. Honestly, I suspect any shortcomings of the 16-35/2.8 were miniscule compared to the effort in handling the Z15. That's my $0.02.

I'm late to this thread, but as I am reassessing my UWA needs as well, I thought I'd chip in.

For my own style of shooting, I find it difficult to combine a zoom for landscape with also using the 24TS. I love the latter, and once I have it on the camera and start composing and focusing in Live View, I tend to stick with that pace of working. I have thought about adding the 17TS, but usually do panos to cover a wider angle w the 24. However, this limits some elements that can be in the scene (moving waves, clouds) but works fine for architecture in general. By using shift for the pan, the stitching is easily seamless. Until the new 24-70II came out, the 24TS was my 'go-to' for IQ as well at 24mm - whether I needed the movements or not. Now that I have the 24-70II, my non-TS requiring landscape at 24mm is covered with the zoom. Should I add the 16-35 IS 4 so I have a 16-70mm landscape set-up w great IQ across all focal lengths? Maybe I should have a zoom landscape set-up (weather sealed, hand-held possible etc) and a TS set-up? As I stated, I find it hard to mix the two approaches (as does my wife who will not tolerate hiking with me if I am trying to use the TS). The filter issue w the 17TS is another consideration - nice to see the solution spelled out here.

I have used the 16-35II for low light photos to stop motion blur of people, but I'm not thrilled w the IQ wide open. For landscape, it is fine at f8 - though the new 16-35 f4 IS may be better at all apertures.

I'm leaning toward a TS landscape package 24 + 17 (maybe when the 17 TS II comes out? if it comes out?) and the 16-35 f4 IS + 24-70II 2.8. This is admittedly shaped around my working habits as well as the image capture concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Yes, I know this is like asking if one prefers apples or scallops. :rolleyes:

---

I think this is the most accurate statement made in the thread.

No, I wouldn't try and talk you out of the TS-E 17mm over the new 16-35. My 16-35 f/2.8L II has been on the shelf in a box for two years now. I need to sell it.
For general shooting I never find myself wanting anything wider than 24mm. Anything wider I would consider a specialty. The TS-E 17mm fits the bill for a specialty lens.

Apples over scallops.
17mm over the 16-35mm.

I've had the Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 for 5-6 months now and one thing I have noticed is that if I want wider than 24 mm, I really want it wide. I've only cropped the image taken with the 14 mm a couple of times. I am still very tempted by the 16-35 IS for the optics/contrast/color that I've been reading about, the IS, weather sealing, and the ability to take filters (ok, and that fancy red ring). I would also say the 16-35 IS would have been the perfect lens for Antelope Canyon, IMO.

But I am not yet convinced I need a zoom in the UWA range. Granted, writing the above paragraph I almost convinced myself to get the 16-35 IS even if I never move it off 16 mm. :rolleyes:

I have the 16-35 f/4 IS and it is a great lens. Unfortunately, I can't compare to 17 Tilt shift, but I love the sharpness, focus speed, and contrast of it.

Take a look at LensRentals.com's blog. Roger and crew have compared the lenses on the test benches, and have disassembled a 16-35/4IS (they were told to wait until there was sufficient stock, so they decided that as long as it didn't need to go out via FedEx for two hours, they had sufficient stock...). Interestingly, his comment in comparing the 16-35/4IS to the TS17 was basically "well, the 17's strengths are tilting and shifting", otherwise the new UWA wins. He also felt the 16-35/4IS will hold up better over the long run than anything else.

Now I'm thinking of trading in my 16-35/2.8 for a 16-35/4IS...