Starting with tilt and shift lenses?

Manfr3d · September 7, 2010

Hi,

I would like to start out with TS lenses for nature photography, but don't
really know where to begin. There are 4 focal lengths to choose from (17mm,
24mm, 45mm, 90mm) and thats where the headache begins. I don't think I want
the ultra expensive 17mm lens before I really know what I am doing. The 90mm
seems to be the most versatile of the bunch because it can be used for closeups,
poducts, selective focus portraits and landscape shots as well. However a 24mm or
45mm seems to be the better choice for landscape shots.

Is the 100mm L IS Macro a good substitute for the 90mm TS for nature shots? How much
better is the Version II 24mm lens than the Version I?

I shoot with a 5D Mark II and have a budget of about 3k. Which would allow me to
get one of the new TS lenses (17mm, 24mm II) or two of the older ones (24mm I, 45mm,
90mm, or the L Macro).

How did you decide which TS lens to buy?

jogle · September 7, 2010

I tried both the 24 and 45 TSE's, I ended up with the 45mm. I found as it's closer to a normal field of view, it makes the tilt shift effect that much more startling.

I tend to use it for environmental portraiture, here's the kind of stuff I shoot...

http://www.ogle.co.nz/Street-Scenes/Wellington/2590831_xJDGf#252574997_o5ZBs
http://www.ogle.co.nz/Street-Scenes/Wellington/2590831_xJDGf#199173486_b8SuC
http://www.ogle.co.nz/Street-Scenes/Wellington/2590831_xJDGf#199173574_6qns8
http://www.ogle.co.nz/People/Friends/3417554_3YNfu#166217385_CQa3N
http://www.ogle.co.nz/Parties/Phat-10/10995818_7Kqvf#768917293_5SNkn
http://www.ogle.co.nz/Movies/First-Light/4762594_hVQLU#290656450_c9VHb
http://www.ogle.co.nz/Travel/Around-New-Zealand/3132401_knmSq#252632344_jNg4N

If you want to shoot more landscapey stuff, I'd probably reccomend the 24mm. My friend who has one uses it for shooting panoramas without rotating the camera, just shifting left and right.

I'd also highly recommend the L macro before getting a tilt shift. it's a stunning lens that's way more useful then just macro shots. The tilt shift is a bit of a one trick wonder in a lot of ways.

borrowlenses.com · September 7, 2010

Not to be a broken record but you can always rent and see what fits your needs. Generally speaking though jogle's post is good advice -- a lot of people like the 45mm due to its standard focal length.

Malte · September 7, 2010

:lurk

I too would love to own one of these one day...

Can anyone give me some typical use cases for the various focal lengths of TS-lenses?

Thanks!

Malte

Matthew Saville · September 7, 2010

Depending on what you shoot, I would either get both the 24 and 45, or just the 24 mk2.

Get both the 24 and 45 if you aren't THAT hardcore into landscapes, and can stand slightly less sharp corners, and also you will be limited in your movements. (read up on the new 24 and how it can turn on two separate axis' for tilting and shifting in either horizontal OR vertical directions, even in separate directions from each other...)

The 24 mk1 and 45 will be great for misc. street portraiture where you just want to totally weird your focus. Go crazy with the movements and get yourself some unique images!

However if you're a hardcore architecture or landscape photographer, the 24 mk2 is in a league of it's own. Again, read up on the way Canon re-engineered this lens so that it now has movements that even the new Nikon 24 PCE does *NOT* have... This will be your favorite lens in MANY situations, because of what it will allow you to do with your depth, and of course perspective correction.

So bottom line, it just depends on what you wanna use the lenses for- goofing off and tweaking your focus, get the 24 and 45. Hardcore architecture or landscapes, get the 24.

In a pinch, you can slap the 24 on a 7D to get a bit longer, for portraiture etc, too. Don't forget that!

Here's a detail shot I got with the 24 TSE mk2 a few weekends ago, at a wedding. I was using a 7D...

...For comparison, here's the two shots I took on an ordinary 17-55 (7D) that led up to that final image. You can see how the limitation of a standard lens would only allow me to focus on one element at a time...

=Matt=

holzphoto · September 7, 2010

i own the 17, 45 and 90.

these were all taken w/ the 17mm...

Dan7312 · September 8, 2010

Just curious about this, I've never tried it.

For image #2 you had the image plane almost parallel to Alice. If you had shot it with the image plane at about 45 degrees to Alice, that is parallel to a plane running through Alice, the front mushooms and the upper back mushooms, then the overall focus of the background and forground would have been better but the perspective would have been messed up. But couldn't the perspective have been fixed up in PS if the shot took into account that parts of the image would be lost because of the correction?

Isn't moving the camera around to get the image plane as you want it, then fixing the perspective in PS the similar to swings 'n tilts on the lens? With landscapes you are limited in where you can put the camera though so it's not always possible "move" the plane to where you want it.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

...For comparison, here's the two shots I took on an ordinary 17-55 (7D) that led up to that final image. You can see how the limitation of a standard lens would only allow me to focus on one element at a time...
=Matt=

Matthew Saville · September 8, 2010

Dan7312 wrote: »

Just curious about this, I've never tried it.

For image #2 you had the image plane almost parallel to Alice. If you had shot it with the image plane at about 45 degrees to Alice, that is parallel to a plane running through Alice, the front mushooms and the upper back mushooms, then the overall focus of the background and forground would have been better but the perspective would have been messed up. But couldn't the perspective have been fixed up in PS if the shot took into account that parts of the image would be lost because of the correction?

Isn't moving the camera around to get the image plane as you want it, then fixing the perspective in PS the similar to swings 'n tilts on the lens? With landscapes you are limited in where you can put the camera though so it's not always possible "move" the plane to where you want it.

There are two ways I can answer your question. The first is quick and to the point-

...But couldn't the perspective have been fixed up in PS...?

...I'd rather not use PS. :-)

Now, for the more complicated answer...

...But couldn't the perspective have been fixed up in PS...?

...The angle is the most important thing to me; I want the background to be far away instead of a flat, boring shot. So I could tweak the *apparent* perspective in PS, but I can NOT go back and change the camera's angle.

Admittedly though, this is a special situation that does not necessarily showcase the most common use of such a lens. Holzphoto's images are what you'd usually see with such a lens- wacky focus that emphasizes a subject by giving a mind-bending effect. Which is something that I do find to be fun, but not an integral part of my style. Personally, as a hobbyist I love landscapes and architecture; therefore I'd be much more inclined to use a TSE lens for what it was originally intended- perspective *correction*, and achieving 100% focus in situations that other lenses wouldn't be able to. Almost like having a 4x5 view camera on the front of your DSLR...

So again like I said, it just depends what your style is, and what you want to do with the lens.

In general for people who really just want to TRY this kinda stuff out, for portraits and goofing around, would be to rent the 45 and 24, and just play around. Maybe if you're into landscapes, read up on classical lens movements too a little bit. You'd be surprised at what these lenses can achieve!

=Matt=

NeilL · September 8, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

Hi,

I would like to start out with TS lenses for nature photography, but don't
really know where to begin. There are 4 focal lengths to choose from (17mm,
24mm, 45mm, 90mm) and thats where the headache begins. I don't think I want
the ultra expensive 17mm lens before I really know what I am doing. The 90mm
seems to be the most versatile of the bunch because it can be used for closeups,
poducts, selective focus portraits and landscape shots as well. However a 24mm or
45mm seems to be the better choice for landscape shots.

Is the 100mm L IS Macro a good substitute for the 90mm TS for nature shots? How much
better is the Version II 24mm lens than the Version I?

I shoot with a 5D Mark II and have a budget of about 3k. Which would allow me to
get one of the new TS lenses (17mm, 24mm II) or two of the older ones (24mm I, 45mm,
90mm, or the L Macro).

How did you decide which TS lens to buy?

Manfred, I have the new 100mm f2.8L Macro, and I get hints using it that it has a few tricks up its sleeve. Can you point me to a discussion or info about what you are alluding to re it possibly being a good substitute for the 90mm TS? Thanks.

Neil

Manfr3d · September 9, 2010

Thank you for the replies and sample pictures! Matthew i definitely want to
use it for landscape before anything else. Right now I am leaning towards
getting the 45 first to see if TS really is for me. It should be a very nice
focal length for shooting in the woods (lots of woods around here

). I
figured is cheaper to pick one up used and try it out and possibly sell it
again instead of renting one. The 24 II and 17mm are a bit too expensive
for that, maybe I'll rent those.

Neil, I was thinking that the 100mm Macro could be a good lens for flowers
and clopseups, where one could also use the 90mm TS lens. The TS has
the benefit of being able to tilt the focus plane so that flowers can be in
full focus while shooting from an angle. I'll have to think about this some
more. The 100mm macro on the other hand seems like a mighty versatile
lens by itself.

Scott_Quier · September 9, 2010

I have the 24mm II and LOVE it. The following are three that I took while visiting White Sands Nat'l Monument in April 2010.

1.

2.

3.

I do know that Mark Muench has both the 17 and 24 and it seems he prefers the 17 for his work. For me, 17 is a touch toooo wide and, in fact, I sometimes have trouble with the 24. But, I'm learning.

jogle · September 9, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

Neil, I was thinking that the 100mm Macro could be a good lens for flowers
and clopseups, where one could also use the 90mm TS lens. The TS has
the benefit of being able to tilt the focus plane so that flowers can be in
full focus while shooting from an angle. I'll have to think about this some
more. The 100mm macro on the other hand seems like a mighty versatile
lens by itself.

I don't know if I've ever seen macro photos taken with the 90mm TSE, I'd really like to see some if you have. I tried putting some extension tubes on my 45mm when I first got the 5D MkII and tried to video a lady bird walking around on a hat. It was the most frustrating experience and I'm pretty sure I deleted the clip. Focusing is hard enough with a macro to make it 5 times harder by throwing a tilt into the mix was just maddening.

Manfr3d · September 10, 2010

jogle wrote: »

I don't know if I've ever seen macro photos taken with the 90mm TSE, I'd really like to see some if you have. I tried putting some extension tubes on my 45mm when I first got the 5D MkII and tried to video a lady bird walking around on a hat. It was the most frustrating experience and I'm pretty sure I deleted the clip. Focusing is hard enough with a macro to make it 5 times harder by throwing a tilt into the mix was just maddening.

The 90mm TS-E can do 1:3 macros but not 1:1 macros (which I dont need).
If you can use liveview it should be relatively easy to focus on static subjects.
But here's an article about the 90mm TS-E for close flower shots: Link

NeilL · September 10, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

Thank you for the replies and sample pictures! Matthew i definitely want to
use it for landscape before anything else. Right now I am leaning towards
getting the 45 first to see if TS really is for me. It should be a very nice
focal length for shooting in the woods (lots of woods around here ). I
figured is cheaper to pick one up used and try it out and possibly sell it
again instead of renting one. The 24 II and 17mm are a bit too expensive
for that, maybe I'll rent those.

Neil, I was thinking that the 100mm Macro could be a good lens for flowers
and clopseups, where one could also use the 90mm TS lens. The TS has
the benefit of being able to tilt the focus plane so that flowers can be in
full focus while shooting from an angle. I'll have to think about this some
more. The 100mm macro on the other hand seems like a mighty versatile
lens by itself.

I took this with the 100mm f2.8L Macro

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1457782#post1457782

It's nowhere near 1:1, of course. The aperture is f8, and the dof is ok, and approximately as wide as the f8 flower shots from the TS-E 90 in the link you gave, I think. I've never used the 100mm Macro for landscape. Should I, do you think?

Neil

NeilL · September 11, 2010

Or... if you want ts-style selective focus, you could save yourself heaps $ and use onOne FocalPoint

http://www.ononesoftware.com/university/webinar-creating-images-with-impact-with-scott-stulberg

Neil

Manfr3d · September 11, 2010

NeilL wrote: »

Or... if you want ts-style selective focus, you could save yourself heaps $ and use onOne FocalPoint

http://www.ononesoftware.com/university/webinar-creating-images-with-impact-with-scott-stulberg

Neil

I wanted to spend less hours on the computer and more in the field.
These softwaresolutions might be good but they will never be able to
tell far from close objects and hence will never be able to simulate
lens out of focus 100% accurately.

Manfr3d · September 11, 2010

NeilL wrote: »

I took this with the 100mm f2.8L Macro

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1457782#post1457782

It's nowhere near 1:1, of course. The aperture is f8, and the dof is ok, and approximately as wide as the f8 flower shots from the TS-E 90 in the link you gave, I think. I've never used the 100mm Macro for landscape. Should I, do you think?

Neil

You are missing the point. With the TS lens you can tilt the focus plane so that even at f16 the background is out of focus.

NeilL · September 11, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

You are missing the point. With the TS lens you can tilt the focus plane so that even at f16 the background is out of focus.

Perhaps it was the reason for your need of a ts that was a little out of focus??!!

wink:D

Neil

Manfr3d · September 11, 2010

NeilL wrote: »

Perhaps it was the reason for your need of a ts that was a little out of focus??!!wink:D
Neil

It you could tilt the focus plane of a macro lens, yes. Otherwise not

NeilL · September 11, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

It you could tilt the focus plane of a macro lens, yes. Otherwise not

Yes, a ts macro would be something.

Neil

Manfr3d · September 11, 2010

NeilL wrote: »

Yes, a ts macro would be something.

Neil

Just use the 90mm TS with extenders and tubes ....

NeilL · September 11, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

Just use the 90mm TS with extenders and tubes ....

Well, sir, have you not just answered your own original question - apparently you know what you need!?

Neil

Manfr3d · September 12, 2010

NeilL wrote: »

Well, sir, have you not just answered your own original question - apparently you know what you need!?

Neil

Dude, I was not asking what is possible (I knew that when I started the
thread) I wanted to know what people use and why they use it and how
it works for them. Im not interested in a theoretical discussion I want
notes from the field so to speak.

Scott_Quier · September 12, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

Just use the 90mm TS with extenders and tubes ....

I seriously doubt this would work. You would much limited by the size of the image circle. Please note, one of the major upgrades in the TS-E 24 II was an increase of the image circle - thus allowing larger shifts/tilts.

jogle · September 12, 2010

Scott_Quier wrote: »

I seriously doubt this would work. You would much limited by the size of the image circle. Please note, one of the major upgrades in the TS-E 24 II was an increase of the image circle - thus allowing larger shifts/tilts.

Maybe my understanding is out of whack, but I thought that when you put an extension tube on a lens, by pushing the lens away from the body, you're effectively increasing the image circle. (which is why the good extension tubes have internal baffles to cut it back down and reduce internal reflections)

Scott_Quier · September 12, 2010

jogle wrote: »

Maybe my understanding is out of whack, but I thought that when you put an extension tube on a lens, by pushing the lens away from the body, you're effectively increasing the image circle. (which is why the good extension tubes have internal baffles to cut it back down and reduce internal reflections)

Hmmm ... it doesn't feel right (can't put it better than that) so I guess I'll have to do some playing with my TS and extension tubes and see what I get. Empirical evidence is always better than any thought exercise. I'll try to get something done in the next day or two.

Manfr3d · September 13, 2010

I just ordered the Canon 24mm f/3.5 L TS-E II from Amazon warehouse
deals (damaged box, but lens in "like new" condition) for 1600. I think
that's a very good deal plus if I don't like the lens I can return it within the
next 30 days. Yehaww!

Starting with tilt and shift lenses?

Comments