Anyone using Canon 50mm TS-E Macro? (at infinity?)

[pchaps]

Please tell me about your experience with the lens and satisfaction with the Canon 50mm TS-E Macro? I used a Canon 45mm TS-E for architecture years and didn't care for it. Thinking of switching to the 50mm TS-E macro but I am concerned about performance at infinity with the macro design. If you have used one, let me know more!

 

[flatulent1]

Have you thought of renting one for a week? I'm thinking of doing that.

 

[pchaps]

Good idea. I am shopping hard to buy one, although I might settle for (another) 45 TS-E (the latter NOT my fav lens).

 

[flatulent1]

Hold out for the 50, I've read less than flattering remarks about the 45.

 

[pchaps]

Agreed. I had a 45 and it was my least favorite lens.

 

[Deon]

I own the TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm lenses (amazing optics at any lens to subject distance). I too have been looking into the TS-E 50mm lens. A few months ago I purchased the new TS-E 90mm lens and returned it as it was very soft beyond 5 metres. It is an amazing lens at close camera to subject distance, but not so great as a landscape lens. A good friend and commercial photographer rented the TS-E 50mm lens and said the first lens he rented was great in studio (shooting a truck) but when he rented the lens again shooting the same truck but in the field and a further subject distance the quality was poor. All of the reviews I have read for the newest TS-E (50, 90, 135) lenses say that are good for all types of photography, including landscape. I disagree, I think that are true macro lenses and are best for in Studio or close up field work kind of subject distances. I have been finding that the equipment reviews on-line are similar in verbiage and are most likely a canned message from the manufacture and not a quality observation from a trained professional who understands what it is they are looking for in a particular piece of equipment.

 

[pchaps]

Deon, I assume you shoot FF -- is that right? Do you have the v2 of the 24 TSE? And for the 90mm TSE was the the v2 "macro" (or the original v1)? Thanks for telling me about the 90mm!

As I mentioned, I owned the 45mm TSE and like others found it unacceptable in terms of sharpness. Perhaps that is why users are looking to the 50mm TSE as an alternative. I believe that my 50 macro will outperform my old 45 TSE which I sold (for $250) and will report when it arrives.

In a wider sense, the "macro at distance" controversy has been around for a long time and I see your point as far as optimization of the optical design. Surely that is true. That being said, in LF even lenses like the Nikkor 300M Macro were widely used for landscapes at infinity. I still use one in my HABS work and it is razor sharp at infinity.

About the 17mm TSE I was ready to get one, but when I look at test results (even in Canon "Masters of Light") I notice that in vertical position with much shift up, the images appear to go soft of that top. Some are using focus stacking as a workaround but I don't have the time to combine multiple shots in my work. If your shift range is more conservative it may be a non-issue but I expect more from a lens of that cost. For superwide on FF I will continue to use my 16-35 L.

Thanks again for your most welcomed note!
Paul

 

[Deon]

Deon, I assume you shoot FF -- is that right? Do you have the v2 of the 24 TSE? And for the 90mm TSE was the the v2 "macro" (or the original v1)? Thanks for telling me about the 90mm!

As I mentioned, I owned the 45mm TSE and like others found it unacceptable in terms of sharpness. Perhaps that is why users are looking to the 50mm TSE as an alternative. I believe that my 50 macro will outperform my old 45 TSE which I sold (for $250) and will report when it arrives.

In a wider sense, the "macro at distance" controversy has been around for a long time and I see your point as far as optimization of the optical design. Surely that is true. That being said, in LF even lenses like the Nikkor 300M Macro were widely used for landscapes at infinity. I still use one in my HABS work and it is razor sharp at infinity.

About the 17mm TSE I was ready to get one, but when I look at test results (even in Canon "Masters of Light") I notice that in vertical position with much shift up, the images appear to go soft of that top. Some are using focus stacking as a workaround but I don't have the time to combine multiple shots in my work. If your shift range is more conservative it may be a non-issue but I expect more from a lens of that cost. For superwide on FF I will continue to use my 16-35 L.

Thanks again for your most welcomed note!
Paul

Yes, I'm shooting FF (5Dsr) and the 24mm is the MkII, as was the 90mm I purchased. Interesting what Canon "Masters of Light" says about the 17mm. I find it to be an amazing lens with amazing sharpness no matter how far it's shifted, period. The 24mm TS-E shows some slight chromatic aberration in the corners when shifted to extremes. Since upgrading from the 5D MkII to the 5D sr I have sold every zoom lens due to sharpness and chromatic aberration issues (16-35, 24-105 and the 70-200 gone). I find the prime lenses to be the best, especially the TS-E lenses.

I wonder if there are differences between lenses off the shelf (quality control issues). When I worked in the commercial photo world we would buy three lenses (all the same) test them all and return the two least desirable ones...

 

[pchaps]

Canon "Masters of Light" did not criticize then (bc they are promoting the 17 TSE). Do you ever shoot something like a skyscraper in a verical with the shift up at max? If so, perhaps I will look for a good sample or best of the litter lol. I DO like the 17mm angle of view!I Other than that, we have some different requirements. Thanks for the most useful info!