08-18-2010, 12:00 PM
[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!
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!
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 ....
