Quote:
Originally Posted by ddk632
Interesting.
I noticed LR5 now has CA correction, not sure if it works as well as the one in Photoshop.
With lens/body error, what's that exactly? My understanding was usually there's micro-adjustment in the camera for specific lenses, but it has to do with calibrating autofocus, which the TS-E 17 doesn't have.
The barrel distortion and pincushion can be useful, but again, very little with this lens. Especially compared to the 24-105L, which has horrible, visibly noticeable curvature of straight horizontal lines before correction. I notice it in my seascapes where the horizon is curved!
Seriously, the TS-E 17 is as close to perfect as a lens can get. I may be biased, but I really love this lens, even if mastering tilt is taking me a long time compared to shift.
Part of me wants a 14L for the wider non-fisheye capability, but the tilt-shift is so useful that I fear it may be too limited, except the big sky type of shots you posted earlier. Anything with buildings, architecture, or any noticeable verticals is hands down TS-E 17 territory.
|
Going from very little to none is always nice. You'll see it.
About the body/lens correction. Each body has a different sensor/filter/processor combination. Unlike film, you don't start with a sharp image and try to preserve it. The digital image is often filter first and then reconstructed in the camera. With the same lens, some bodies will show purple fringing and moire' in certain situation, that would never happen with film or even another digital body. The 5D MkII had a bad purple fringing problem when first introduced and Canon fixed that with a firmware update.
The bodies are getting more and more sophisticated and many actually make corrections in the JPEG files that are lens-dependent, rather than applying the same corrections to all lenses. Taking a Raw file outside the camera, it will not have those same corrections applie. The uninformed may say, "My JPEGs look better than my Raw files" and they'd be right, because they're not processing their Raw files correctly.
I think that Digital Photo Professional has correction for both your 17mm and you 8-15mm. I'd suggest checking to see if they do and trying it to see what differences it makes. With the 8-15mm the differences should be substantial and with the 17mm they'll still be visible. If you still have the 24-105mm, you'll be totally blown away by the improvement you get from applying DLO.
I too was torn between the 14mm rectilinear and the 15mm fisheye. I went with the 15 because I was happy with my de-fishing software results. I predict that with the 17mm in your bag, you'll hardly touch the 14mm.
Dave