[Yakim]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1281988062' post='1823']

Well, postponed isn't yet aborted...



I'll keep my fngers crossed for it to happen soon anyway, if you don't mind...



Kind regards, WIm

[/quote]



Thank you. I'll do the same. Just in case...... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Yakim]

[quote name='Symple' timestamp='1281990970' post='1826']

48 hours only [url="http://cid-d2aa801cea6774c3.office.live.com/browse.aspx/Photozone%20forum%20tse%2024%20II%20request"]here[/url]



Sent a pm explaining a few things. Crap images, but you'll see the difference with the 12mm tube and max focus. Not meant to be art. Only lens movements used in 12mm set, focus left at max, tilt/shift/tilt+shift only. Focus on iso window first set, focus on meter button top second set and left there



Will delete folder in 48hrs.

[/quote]



Thank you very much for taking them. I can't see them now as I'm at work and they are blocked (security issues) but I'll look at them tonight at home.

[ragsnoldiron]

Another temporary link difference between 12mm tube on tse 24 and without [url="http://cid-d2aa801cea6774c3.office.live.com/browse.aspx/PZ%20TS-E%2024%20II%20request%20practical%20difference"]here[/url]. With a distance to subject of around 2cm to 4cm from front element with tube, and then without tube at max focus or close to it. Uncropped full size so you have to download or click on them a few times to get full size; some sharpening, iso 800 f/4 while having coffee this morning in my yard. Focus was on anemone centre and images were chosen to be comparable. Will use tse90 in same spot tomorrow to show difference. Mostly shows difference in depth and out of focus areas.

[Yakim]

Just looked at them. Incredible close-ups. It reinforces my decision to get it. Funny really. For ages I've been lusting over the 17/4 TS and now, during a relatively short time, I've became convinced that the 24/3.5 II will be a better fit.

[wim]

Thank you, Symple! Very nice indeed, and very nice as an example what is possible with this lens too!



Kind regards, Wim

[ragsnoldiron]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282079518' post='1849']

Thank you, Symple! Very nice indeed, and very nice as an example what is possible with this lens too!



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



Kind of you to say.

I really wouldn't use this lens for close-up myself, especially with tubes because 2cm is a little close for comfort for me on the front element. You can actually see the lens in the reflection off one of the bee's back. I have been doing landscape photos mostly with the 24, and am starting to get over how sharp it is and how fussy the focus can be. I have put up one more link of a night photo where I think this lens really excels. I would put up others that are maybe a little better, but have a look at the detail in the lightning as well as the houses [url="https://cid-d2aa801cea6774c3.office.live.com/self.aspx/PZ%2024%20TS-E%20request%20real%20world/pz%5E_forum%5E_tse24ii%5E_practical%5E_night.jpg"]here[/url]. This shot is wide open at iso 100 and really shows off how well the lens resolves, and handles point light sources without aberrations (again, keep clicking on it to get full size or download it and view on your image software).

I have owned and used the 14L II, 16-35 II, 17-40 and none of them compare to the 24 tse II for night shots. I have been doing 40 minute exposures these past few nights for star trails and the details are incredible. Honestly though, just use the ts-e 90 for close-ups using tilt and shift, just too close with the 24.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Symple' timestamp='1282102413' post='1850']

Kind of you to say.

I really wouldn't use this lens for close-up myself, especially with tubes because 2cm is a little close for comfort for me on the front element. You can actually see the lens in the reflection off one of the bee's back. I have been doing landscape photos mostly with the 24, and am starting to get over how sharp it is and how fussy the focus can be. I have put up one more link of a night photo where I think this lens really excels. I would put up others that are maybe a little better, but have a look at the detail in the lightning as well as the houses [url="https://cid-d2aa801cea6774c3.office.live.com/self.aspx/PZ%2024%20TS-E%20request%20real%20world/pz%5E_forum%5E_tse24ii%5E_practical%5E_night.jpg"]here[/url]. This shot is wide open at iso 100 and really shows off how well the lens resolves, and handles point light sources without aberrations (again, keep clicking on it to get full size or download it and view on your image software).

I have owned and used the 14L II, 16-35 II, 17-40 and none of them compare to the 24 tse II for night shots. I have been doing 40 minute exposures these past few nights for star trails and the details are incredible. Honestly though, just use the ts-e 90 for close-ups using tilt and shift, just too close with the 24.

[/quote]

*edited*

One thing I do not understand from your posted images is the lack of magnification (anemone shots). Are nr 1 +2 really with 12mm ext. tube? I know I tried 24mm with 12mm ext. tube only on APS-C, but then still, to me it seems I got much bigger magnification.

Also, the 24mm TS-E II offers closer MFD than the lens I tried with, so to me it is even more puzzling. Those anemones are actually quite big... At least 3 cm wide.

And since the 24mm TS-E II actually can do 1:3.5 all on its own, it rather looks like you shot without the 12mm tube in all shots.

[ragsnoldiron]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282117948' post='1855']

One thing I do not understand from your posted images is the lack of magnification (anemone shots). Is nr 3 really at MFD? I know I tried 24mm with 12mm ext. tube only on APS-C, but then still, to me it seems I got much bigger magnification.

Also, the 24mm TS-E II offers closer MFD than the lens I tried with, so to me it is even more puzzling. Those anemones are actually quite big...

[/quote]



Yes, I agree that there isn't much magnification, and the results from your zoom are preferable to my eye than these examples, but I am sure that I had the lens as far as it would turn to mfd, and I just used the rail to slide the camera in to focus with and without the tube on. Two images at mfd have the tube on, two don't, but the file name is generic just for simplicity on my end when i exported them to a folder [they all say 12mm tube if it wasn't actually used on the example including the image of the setup]. The images are quite distinct with the tube, so I didn't think it was necessary to identify them separately, and the exif was minimized since I don't really want everyone knowing all the boring details about me that is also embedded on the RAW files.

The last photo there of the tripod next to the anemone gives some scale, but overall they are small bumble-bees on large Japanese anemone. I am at a different computer, but I recall my exif indicating that 220mm was the focus distance on all shots either with or without the 12mm tube, and these are with a 5D II.

Truthfully, I wouldn't post these images as examples of my photography either, but I thought it would relatively clearly answer the utility of this lens for close-focus with the tube on, however I didn't utilize tilt in the anemone examples; but I really didn't think it worthwhile or practical anyways. On a flatter, more two dimensional subject like the lightmeter there are benefits to the close focus and tilt, but again, I would much rather use the ts-e 90 than the 24. I am still learning to use the lens, and get a feel for when to use movements, but I still have a long ways to go.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Symple' timestamp='1282127835' post='1857']

Yes, I agree that there isn't much magnification, and the results from your zoom are preferable to my eye than these examples, but I am sure that I had the lens as far as it would turn to mfd, and I just used the rail to slide the camera in to focus with and without the tube on.

The last photo there of the tripod next to the anemone gives some scale, but overall they are small bumble-bees on large Japanese anemone. I am at a different computer, but I recall my exif indicating that 220mm was the focus distance on all shots either with or without the 12mm tube, and these are with a 5D II.

Truthfully, I wouldn't post these images as examples of my photography either, but I thought it would relatively clearly answer the utility of this lens for close-focus with the tube on, however I didn't utilize tilt in the anemone examples; but I really didn't think it worthwhile or practical anyways. On a flatter, more two dimensional subject like the lightmeter there are benefits to the close focus and tilt, but again, I would much rather use the ts-e 90 than the 24. I am still learning to use the lens, and get a feel for when to use movements, but I still have a long ways to go.

[/quote]

Sorry, you seem to have been writing a reply while I was editing my post.



Like I wrote in the edited version, what puzzles me is why, with 12mm ext. tube, you are not reaching past 1:3.5, something the lens can do on its own. I will shoot the same anemones with 24mm and 12mm ext. tube, to show the huge difference...

[wim]

[quote name='Symple' timestamp='1282102413' post='1850']

Kind of you to say.

I really wouldn't use this lens for close-up myself, especially with tubes because 2cm is a little close for comfort for me on the front element. You can actually see the lens in the reflection off one of the bee's back. I have been doing landscape photos mostly with the 24, and am starting to get over how sharp it is and how fussy the focus can be. I have put up one more link of a night photo where I think this lens really excels. I would put up others that are maybe a little better, but have a look at the detail in the lightning as well as the houses [url="https://cid-d2aa801cea6774c3.office.live.com/self.aspx/PZ%2024%20TS-E%20request%20real%20world/pz%5E_forum%5E_tse24ii%5E_practical%5E_night.jpg"]here[/url]. This shot is wide open at iso 100 and really shows off how well the lens resolves, and handles point light sources without aberrations (again, keep clicking on it to get full size or download it and view on your image software).

I have owned and used the 14L II, 16-35 II, 17-40 and none of them compare to the 24 tse II for night shots. I have been doing 40 minute exposures these past few nights for star trails and the details are incredible. Honestly though, just use the ts-e 90 for close-ups using tilt and shift, just too close with the 24.

[/quote]

Well, personally I do use the TS-E 90 for shots like that, under normal conditions, or the TS-E 45. I used to have the TS-E 24L Mk I, but replaced it with the TS-E 17L, as I was on FF by then, and which I won't be using for "macro" shots I would think. However, I replied to Yakim originally, because I did experiment with the TS-E 24, both for macro, and for semi-macro, which it does actually remarkably well.



I have used or owned the Sigma 12-24 EX, Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8, 24L, 24L II (still have), 17-40L, 24-105L, TS-E 24L Mk I (and 45 and 90, which I both still have), and the TS-E 17 is also one of those lenses that are incredibly good, better than anything else in its class. So far this was the only lens where I had to desharpen continually when downsizing for the web, as just downsizing resulted in sharpening artefacts <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Since the TS-E 24L Mk II is even better based on the tests I have seen, I am certainly looking forward to get my hands on one, probably not before next year however.



Focus is very fussy with these lenses, primarily I think because they are so sharp. Anything slightly OOF due to the slightest focusing errors starts to look disappointingly "soft" by comparison. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Kind regards, Wim



P.S.: your linked shot is very spectacular!