04-30-2012, 10:55 AM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1335778909' post='17876']
This will indeed be a critical issue, I guess. Being a T/S-lens, a PC-E 17 will likely have an even shorter hood than the 14-24 (if it gets one at all).
Out of curiosity: is flare an issue in the field with the TS-E 17? Wim?
-- Markus
[/quote]
Not with the Canon TS-E 17. I find one really has to try (very) hard to get flaring with the TS-E 17. But then, having owned the Nikkor 14-24, although that doesn't do as well, it is quite good too, really. Certainly much better than any of my older UWA lenses. IOW, I would expect a PC-E 17 to do better than the 14-24, which is quite good already.
Kind regards, Wim
This will indeed be a critical issue, I guess. Being a T/S-lens, a PC-E 17 will likely have an even shorter hood than the 14-24 (if it gets one at all).
Out of curiosity: is flare an issue in the field with the TS-E 17? Wim?
-- Markus
[/quote]
Not with the Canon TS-E 17. I find one really has to try (very) hard to get flaring with the TS-E 17. But then, having owned the Nikkor 14-24, although that doesn't do as well, it is quite good too, really. Certainly much better than any of my older UWA lenses. IOW, I would expect a PC-E 17 to do better than the 14-24, which is quite good already.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....