Tilt & Shift Lenses - Questionnaire

[Donald]

If you use a tilt and shift, could you let me know what you think of it.

What do you use it for?

What focal length is it ... and is that the right focal length for what you do?

If for landscape, is it better than using a wide angle lens at, say, f16?

As you will no doubt have figured out, I am looking at getting one. I'd love to have one, but I do need to make the case, to myself, for doing so.

[Manfred M]

Donald - I have a 24mm tilt - shift lens (Nikkor f/3.5 24mm TC-E) and I primarily use it when shooting buildings and architecture, interior and exterior shots. It definitely shines in those situations and I continue to use it for those types of shots. I have never used it in a pure landscape setting without having a man-made structure in it.

I strongly suspect that if I buy another lens, it will be another tilt - shift, but at this point, I am not sure which one. The 19mm would be a welcome addition for interior work only. I'm not convinced I would use it for any exterior work.

Nikon also make a 45mm and 85mm tilt - shift and for the type of shooting I would use them for, I suspect I would look at the 45mm, primarily outdoor work, again with man-made structures in the composition. I suspect that the 85mm lens would be a bit like the 19mm, a bit too specialized for the types of scenes that I shoot. If I have some spare money to seriously look at another T-S lens, I suspect I would rent the model I am considering and see if it does what I want it to.

[Polar01]

I rented the Nikkor 45mm TC-E and fell in love with it, after many years (6) bought one. Used it mostly for landscaping at the time, got a couple of my best images using it. One with sun on a mountain top, shifted the lens to the left, then centre, and finally right. Put them together into a pano best image ever. The other was a 27 shot pano, did it in vertical slices by shifting the lens up to bottom, then rotated the lens on the tripod, until I had nine strips of 3 shots each. That was Devil's Tower in WY. Just waiting to get out with the purchased one soon, hopefully Ottawa this Winter.

[ST1]

Donald sorry I don’t have any practical experience of tilt and shift lenses. However from the images of yours that I’ve seen posted on here they are usually a landscape scene with a square format and Black & White.
If you are considering using a tilt and shift lens for that genre of photography and recognising your hint at using f16 on a non tilt and shift lens.
I suspect that you could achieve a depth of field similar to that obtainable from a TS lens by focus stacking three landscapes images that have been focused in a sequence foreground, mid and background.
My last paragraph could of course by construed as to my Yorkshire heritage i.e. “short arms and long pockets”
I wish you well in your deliberations.


Sent from somewhere in Gods County using Tapatalk

[Donald]

My last paragraph could of course by construed as to my Yorkshire heritage i.e. “short arms and long pockets”

With strong Scottish tones.

Many thanks for the advise and comments guys.

Canon have just introduced a 50mm to replace the 45mm and if I was to get one, I am trying to figure out whether the 24mm or the 50mm would be the choice.

[ST1]

Donald have you checked what focal lengths your historic images consist of ie how many have you made at 24mm versus how many you’ve made at 45/50mm. Understanding that mix may make your decisions easier.


Sent from somewhere in Gods County using Tapatalk

[Donald]

Donald have you checked what focal lengths your historic images consist of ie how many have you made at 24mm versus how many you’ve made at 45/50mm. Understanding that mix may make your decisions easier.

Yes I have .... and that's part of the dilemma.

Someone who has led courses that I've been on and is a well respected landscape photographer, says that the 24mm is the lens of choice for the landscape photographer. I know what he means when I look his images. But I tend not to do the sort of things that he and others do in terms of landscapes. When I review my images, I find the images that I think are worth showing tend to be in the 35mm-100mm, and longer, range.

So, I am thinking that the 50mm is what I'd want to get, but feel we landscapers are meant to want more wide angle.

I am just not obeying the 'rules' of a landscape photographer!

[ST1]

Donald if I was in your situation where you have looked at the focal lengths your images have been made at I would use that data when deciding which focal length to purchase.
One aspect of buying a TS lens (IMHO) would be the associated learning curve wrt the compositional aspects of using a TS lens.
To be honest I have a macro lens and whilst it can produce good images I’ve never captured an outstanding macro image. But maybe that’s down to my perception. That’s not to say that if I invested more time on using it my technique may improve and maybe I would be less self critical of my results.
I have historically considered the purchase of a TS lens for landscape photography but I really struggle in identifying the benefit of owning one.
Finally have you considered a try before you buy scenario by hiring a tilt and shift for a week and working with it.


Sent from somewhere in Gods County using Tapatalk

[loosecanon]

I have used TS lenses for a long time, and I have even converted my original 35mmTS from FD to EOS mount. Mostly I use the 24mm and 17mm for architecture. I also find the 45mm useful in church architecture for grave slabs and so on, and recently got a used 90mm for items high on the wall, such as armorial boards or wall paintings.

For landscape the advantage I find is the slightly different perspective, more forground in image, without tilting the camera and a greater apparant separation of foreground objects. Rectolinear panoramas are also possible, but one can now buy ultra wide lenses cheaper. I do find I often use the 24mm to make a square format image from two shifted shots

The use of TS lenses does slow one down, makes each shot more considered. I find often with landscape that focus stacking is easier than tilting the focus plane.

Since Canon introduced its horrendously expensive new shift lenses quite a few 45mm and 90mm have come on the market, I have one of each which showed minimal signs of use, and at 20% of the cost of the replacement lenses, to me it is a no brainer.

If you use prime lenses then then they are a useful alternative, otherwise another weight that will be used only occasionally and of course its almost essential to use with a tripod.

[Manfred M]

its almost essential to use with a tripod.

Agreed, but for indoor work (unlikely where Donald is looking at using it), I find that a 2-axis bubble level sitting on the camera's hot shoe and shooting using LiveView gives acceptable results in places where tripods are either not allowed or are impractical.

[george013]

May I ask a question.
What I understood is that a tilt/shift lens has a bigger image circle and that that projection of that circle can be moved across the sensor so that one can select a part of that bigger image circle to cover the sensor.
In case of a pano made with this lens, what's the difference between that pano and another lens with a wider aov?

George

[William W]

Hi Donald,

I have two: both are Canon EF Mount, the 17 and the 90. I’ve had the 90 for several years, acquiring it just after we cut over to (Canon) digital from (Nikon) Film 135 Format in 2004. I’ve also had 5x4 View/Field Cameras.

I use both my TS-E Lenses exclusively on 135 Format (i.e. NOT APS-C nor APS-H).

The 90 is used mainly for Location Portraiture, consider the comment, (Post #9) regarding items placed on high walls and translate that to Portraiture on a backdrop of a skewed fence line or building façade, etc.) For this purpose it is an excellent lens. It is also an excellent 90mm Prime Lens for Portraiture, (i.e. no Tilt nor Shift), though a little slow aperture one can still maintain a reasonable shallow DoF for Half Shots and Tighter.

I’d expect that for Landscape Work it would generally be a bit too long, for most situations: which means it would have application, but those would be limited; for example, what initially springs to my mind is a Wandering Fence Line over Rolling Paddocks, and the like. Mind, I am not overly skilled/experienced in Landscape Work.

The TS-E 17 I acquired about 18 months ago, second hand from a colleague who specialized in Real Estate and Interior Design Photography, (he had a life change and sold off his specialist gear – the “deal” was slendiphorous). At the time, I was thinking about a TS-E 24 (opting between the original or MkII), and after consultation with another colleague who had used both, (and also has had an array of TS-E Lenses), I decided that the 24 MkII was what I wanted; however the TS-E 17 came to my attention and I went back to my second mentioned colleague and inquired about the 17 and the x1.4 MkII Extender EF. I was then confident that the ES-E 17 with the x1.4 MkII would give me IQ as good as or likely better than the TS-E24 (original). I mainly use the TS-E 17 for Interior Architecture and have not used it all that much with the x1.4 Extender, I think this is because I am going through a phase of negotiating/mastering extremely wide angle lenses.

I expect that the 17 would have more practical uses for Landscape Work than the 90.

I understand that the rationale that drives a “Landscape Photographer” to say that the 24mm is the best choice and that’s obviously a generalization: I think that the more correct the statement would be something like ‘given a choice of only one (Canon) TS-E Lens, the majority of Landscape Photographers would choose the 24mm’ Of course that doesn't meant that the 24 is the best choice for ALL Landscape Photographers

I think that you (Donald) should investigate the use of the Extenders EF, especially the x1.4 MkIII. (Note MkIII), this might have sway in your final choice: thinking “using with extender” and because Canon is devoid of a TS-E 35, I think this renders your choices around the 17, 24, 45 and 50. I am not that sure I would buy a 50 when there are so many good 45s available; by a similar token I would definitely invest in a 24mm MkII and a x1.4MkIII (which gets to equiv 38mm), if the desire is to have something longer than 24mm.

I think that one main point is to NOT place much consideration on what Focal Lengths that you typically have used, but rather consider more deeply how Camera Movements will assist your Creative Growth and assist manufacture a better Artistic Output.

With great respect for you, your question about using a wide lens at F/16 is somewhat out of the aspect of why you should be considering a Tilt Shift Lens in the first place: Camera Movements (Tilt and Shift being considered here) are all about a greater ‘manipulation’ of the Plane of Sharp Focus; (a resultant larger) Depth of Field is a undeniably a usual result of that manipulation, but, IMO should not be the main reason for buying a TS-E Lens.

Best,

Bill

[Manfred M]

May I ask a question.
What I understood is that a tilt/shift lens has a bigger image circle and that that projection of that circle can be moved across the sensor so that one can select a part of that bigger image circle to cover the sensor.
In case of a pano made with this lens, what's the difference between that pano and another lens with a wider aov?

George

Normally when shooting a pano we take a shot, rotate the camera a bit, take the next shot, rotate the camera again, and so on until we have taken all the images; i.e. we have a single row of images

When using a shift/tilt lens we set up the lens shifted all the way down and take a row of images. We then rotate the camera back to the starting point, shift the lens all the way up and repeat shooting and rotating. This means we end up with two rows of images to merge in the pano software, which produces a pano that is twice as high as one taken with a normal lens.

Additional height can also be accomplished with a pano kit made by companies like Nodal Ninja or Novoflex.

https://shop.nodalninja.com/


http://https://novoflex.de/en/produc...multi-row.html

[george013]

Normally when shooting a pano we take a shot, rotate the camera a bit, take the next shot, rotate the camera again, and so on until we have taken all the images; i.e. we have a single row of images

When using a shift/tilt lens we set up the lens shifted all the way down and take a row of images. We then rotate the camera back to the starting point, shift the lens all the way up and repeat shooting and rotating. This means we end up with two rows of images to merge in the pano software, which produces a pano that is twice as high as one taken with a normal lens.

Additional height can also be accomplished with a pano kit made by companies like Nodal Ninja or Novoflex.

https://shop.nodalninja.com/


http://https://novoflex.de/en/produc...multi-row.html

I'm asking for Donald wants to buy a tilt/shift for his photography. And most of the answers here are related to landscape and pano. I just wonder what are the benefits to purchase this kind of lens. If you've one you can use the possibilities of it, but why to purchase one. Everything can be done with normal lenses. I don't mean the tilt possibilities.

George

[Manfred M]

I'm asking for Donald wants to buy a tilt/shift for his photography. And most of the answers here are related to landscape and pano. I just wonder what are the benefits to purchase this kind of lens. If you've one you can use the possibilities of it, but why to purchase one. Everything can be done with normal lenses. I don't mean the tilt possibilities.

George

The shift / tilt lenses do two things:

1. Shift - helps with perspective. When we shoot with a normal lens, we will often tilt the camera up or down a bit to ensure we get the subject entirely in frame. This introduces perspective distortion; if we tilt the camera up, parallel lines in the subject tend to tilt inward and buildings and other structures tend to look strange as if they are collapsing inward. We get the opposite effect when we tilt the camera downwards.

If we set the camera to be level, we will tend to cut off the tops of buildings and trees and get a lot of foreground. This is where the shift comes in. We set the camera level and shift the lens up until we get the image framed the way we want it (within limits of the lens shift movement of course). Vertical lines can then be photographed looking vertical rather than being on an angle.

We can get the same impact in software using perspective correction tools, but here we are throwing away pixels. It's not that critical for images that are displayed on screen, but if one is a printer, like Donald, this causes softness in the image and is not desirable, hence the use of a perspective correcting (shift / tilt lens).

2. Tilt - depth of field is a function of the distance of the subject to the lens. When we tilt the lens, we can change that by adjusting parts of the image to be farther away than others. This allows the photographer to exaggerate the effect of DoF in the image.

[DanK]

Manfred,

thanks. A very concise summary for those of us who are new to this.

Dan

[shreds]

I have long considered (ten plus years) that a T-S would be a good move for the many interior architectural shots I take all the time.

I tend to compromise and use software to correct the worst excesses, but I do find this can be a poor solution. Similarly only one Nikon T-S allows correction of both T & S at the same time and that is their top of the range 19mm. Lovely! Except the price! It is so expensive that some of the lens hire companies dont list one in stock, and even Wex only seem to have stock at HO, (although if you have that much brass, they will no doubt deliver it personally in a security van with your dinner too)!

Hopefully the versions you are considering are more affordable. We do seem to be progressing back to the days of plate cameras on tripods for quality shots that are arranged in this way. Last time I saw someone doing that was in Leith in Edinburgh a few years ago after the historic area had been rejuvenated but before the Royal Yacht Britannia had yet to arrive. Some fascinating buildings round there and worthy of a T-S.

[Manfred M]

Similarly only one Nikon T-S allows correction of both T & S at the same time and that is their top of the range 19mm.

My understanding is that Nikon can convert the existing lenses to do this, but unlike the user adjustable 19mm, the change is permanent. I don't personally know anyone who has done this nor do I know how long it would take or the cost of the conversion. I rarely use the tilt functionality so don't really care.

[odds]

...24mm is the lens of choice for the landscape photographer. I know what he means when I look his images.

I have three of Nikon's so called Perspective Control or PC lenses. A 35mm shift only, and 24mm and 85mm tilt and shift.

Nikon's PC-E 19mm is tempting. Not for being wider than the 24mm, but for the adjustable angle between tilt and shift axes. I believe Canons TS-lenses has had that for quite some time.

Gale Spring demonstrates one use of shift that I have not seen mentioned in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOh5zUOww0E
--
Odd S.

[Manfred M]

I have three of Nikon's so called Perspective Control or PC lenses. A 35mm shift only, and 24mm and 85mm tilt and shift.

Nikon's PC-E 19mm is tempting. Not for being wider than the 24mm, but for the adjustable angle between tilt and shift axes. I believe Canons TS-lenses has had that for quite some time.

Gale Spring demonstrates one use of shift that I have not seen mentioned in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOh5zUOww0E
--
Odd S.

Thanks for posting. That's a fairly well known use of the shift functionality of a PC lens. I think I've done an image like this once or twice in the 5 years I've owned my PC lens.