Digital BW, The Print

> Have you had your sample checked out by Canon Repair?
> The TS45 is a pretty  highly regarded lens on cameras
> with much higher resolution than your Rebel.

Yes, the 24 TS was so bad I felt it must be a defect.  I sent it to Canon,
and they said it was within specs.  I'd say it makes a great lens for
slides, and magazine-size prints, but even in magazines, I think the
distortion is visible.  It was a real disappointment, but I know I expect
too much from 35 mm.  I'm basically a medium format shooter who uses 16 x 20
as the standard size for comparisons.

>This might be a good place to start and offer a counterpoint to Paul's
>experience with TS lenses.
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml

I wish I knew more about the Canon MTF charts.  They don't seem to coincide
with what I see.  It may be that I'm looking for more fine detail than they
test for.  For example, their 24 F2.8 in my resolution tests on film and the
Rebel, looks much better than my 45 TS, yet one would not necessarily
conclude that from the MTF charts Canon posts.  I don't know what
frequencies and f stops they are displaying in those charts, and that could
be where the difference are.

Then again, maybe the current 24 TS has been re-designed after the early
sample I bought.

I suppose the safest thing is to buy from a place where you can return the
lens if it is not up to what you want it for.

I'd love a 24TS (actually wider for the smaller sensor) if it could hit the
sharpness targets I set for what I like to do.  Tilt and shift are very
useful tools.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com  

> 
> --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > >
> > > I think your criticism is simply of the particular
> > Canon shift lens you
> > > own,
> >
> > The fact that the lens is both a shift and tilt
> > exacerbates the problems.
> > It suffers from the wider image circle as well as
> > the greater rear element
> > to film distance (more radical retro-focus design).
> >
> > > and unfair in that you are talking of using it for
> > something it was
> > > not designed for.
> >
> > I have owned 5 Canon tilt shift lenses, all of which
> > were for film cameras.
> > I love what then can do, but optically, the wide
> > angle ones are just not up
> > to the standards I expect of good 35 mm lenses.
> >
> > > For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm
> > on
> > > an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent
> > performer, sharp into the
> > > corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't
> > fit on my Nikon.
> >
> > The shift-only lenses only have half the problems of
> > the tilt-shift.
> >
> > But, to get equal quality from a larger image
> > circle, it takes a better,
> > more expensive lens.  I'll bet you paid a premium
> > for that lens.
> >
> >
> > > There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show
> > the 'sweet spot'
> > > argument is a good one,
> >
> > The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is
> > going to be better than
> > it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, a
> > designer could make a better
> > lens all the way to the edge if the circle could be
> > smaller.  It's a
> > trade-off.  More money, of course, can allow them to
> > make great retro-focus
> > lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost
> > a bundle.  Cost is a
> > huge factor.
> >
> > I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is
> > about as good as the new
> > Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 times the
> > cost.
> >
> > > However the main point of some of the reviews is
> > that some lenses
> > > designed for film are not capable of getting the
> > best out of some
> > > digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is
> > true of some very
> > > expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens
> > designers do usually
> > > now claim to be designing for digital, and this
> > does seem to mean
> > > something, not just marketing talk.
> >
> > > Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to
> > design great
> > > wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan
> > of some of these, with
> > > a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well
> > as an 'interesting'
> > > 35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit
> > digital cameras.
> >
> >
> > Exactly, in addition to the greater need for
> > anti-reflection coating on the
> > rear element, I assume you've seen the un-processed
> > wide angle shots on the
> > Epson Leica copy.  They are outrageous.  The light
> > fall-off is terrible.
> > The obtuse angle of the light that the
> > non-retro-focus (outstanding) Leica
> > or Cosina lenses result in produces a huge problem.
> > While raw processing
> > can take care of it, in part, this is yet another
> > factor that robs our very
> > scarce dynamic range.  Until there is a major
> > advance in digital sensors,
> > symmetric wide angles are probably not serious
> > contenders, which means those
> > who buy these digital Leicas for their great wide
> > angles may be
> > disappointed.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - no fees. Bid on great items.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>