Tilt & Shift Lens + a tele-converter/extender

[Donald]

I read somewhere (can't find it again) that you can fit a converter/extender to a T & S lens without losing any function (apart from f stops). Is that the case? In other words, all the T & S capabilities still work as per normal?

[William W]

Assume you're asking about Canon TS-E Lenses with Canon Extenders EF?

Yes. All Canon Extenders EF will mount to all Canon TS-E Lenses, though not "officially" according to Canon.

I've found the x1.4MkII is especially handy on the TS-E17, alleviating my purchase of the TS-E 24.

Not un-useful of the TS-E 90, either.



Probably all other brand "teleconverters" with work with Canon TS-E Lenses, but there could be problems with mounting a Canon Extender EF on third party EF Mount T&S Lens (e.g. a Samyang T&S 24).

WW

[William W]

What TS-E lens(es) are you considering using?

There has been discussion on other forums, mainly regarding Image Quality: Photo.net; Luminous Landscape and dpreview.

WW

[Donald]

What TS-E lens(es) are you considering using?

That is the great imponderable. I think I'm looking at the 24mm now that I've learned I can put an extender on it. I did look at the 45mm and even the 90mm.

Either the 24mm or the 45mm are the two options now that I know I could use an extender. Or is it the 45mm or the 90mm?

My photography is more towards using lenses above 35mm, or more. I don't do much below that sort of figure.

Assume you're asking about Canon TS-E Lenses with Canon Extenders EF?

Yes.

[William W]

I have the TS-E90 F/2.8 (1991 version in the photo above) and the TS-E17 F/4. My 90 is mainly used for Portraiture, and I have used it quite a bit. The 17 I bought from a colleague, Real Estate Photographer, who closed his business, it was a recent 'impulse buy at a very good price' - not something I usually do - but it is a fun lens - and I had been 'wanting' a TS-E 24 for a long time (note 'wanting', certainly not 'needing').

Taking into account ONLY that you are at 35mm or longer most of the time, then a 45 seems on the face of it, a reasonable choice for you. I've used one. It's very sharp and I pondered a 45 or a 90 for a long time: in the end I bought the 90 as seemed a better choice for me because I believed I'd need to crop many of my images if they were made with a 45.

However, I'd advise you follow a similar line of thinking to mine when I was making that choice: the first premise being:

"What FL will I most use IF I am using a TS-E Lens?" - and that's a different question to:

"what FL do I generally use?"

Yes I understand it is not an easy answer, but, I think a reasonable answer can be got - your words . . .

"I am not a landscape photographer. But I do photograph the land. But my images of the land are not photographs to show off the land, but images that say something about the land - its ownership and the need for land reform; how it is used; something that speaks about climate change and the environment.

I don't see my photographs as, anymore, being pieces standing on their own. They will be part of a series or an exploration of some specific, articulated theme to be viewed as such. I will still post images on this forum from time-to-time and ask for comments from members. But more likely is that I will post an album, or partly completed or draft copy of an album, of my explorations and invite comment on that.

I feel that my photography now has a purpose."

Based on those statements only - I'd advise you ponder what tool might be best suited, IF I am using a TS-E Lens?"

Also note that the TS-E 24 F/3.5 MkII has a feature "TS Rotation".

This is a feature of rotation independent of and in relation to the shift movement.

Other (older) TS-E Lenses, (i.e. the 45, 90 and original 24) can change the orientation of the shift and tilt in relation to each other by taking the lens apart, (or sending it to Canon), even then, the movement orientation options available were either perpendicular (right angle) or parallel to each other (i.e. only 2 options).

With 24 MkII the rotation of the tilt and shift can be independent of each other and the relationship can be changed by varying amounts up to 90 degrees. (The TS-E 17 F/4 has the TS Rotation feature, also).

WW

[Donald]

Thank you, Bill. That has helped clarify my thinking. 24mm it is with an Extender on the side just for good measure.

[Donald]

Next part of the question, to Bill, or A.N Other, is - 1.4x or 2x Extender? Looking at the lll Extenders.

I know all that's said about the the 2x producing lesser quality images than the 1.4x, but is it that much? And is it noticeable in an image at say 14" x 11" size? I am worried that the message that the 2x is less good than the 1.4x has taken on an energy of its own and everybody says it must be, because that's what they're expected to say.

I don't need speed - I shoot mainly at f16 on all my lenses. Occasionally I'll go to 200 ISO of 400 ISO, but mainly I'm at 100 ISO. I focus manually all the time anyway. Surely Canon wouldn't produce the 2x if it didn't sell.

Any thoughts?

[rpcrowe]

Unfortunately. I have never read a review of Canon teleconverters that describes the deterioration caused by adding a TC (either 1.4x or 2x) to a lens in terms of other than "slight" or "significant" deterioration. Objective numbers never seem to be given.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/art...y-a-comparison

I do know, however that the IQ deterioration does depend on the lens to which the TX has been added.

My experience with Canon TC's has only been with long focal length lenses.

I have used a 1.4x TC both of the Mk-i and Mk-iii varieties on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens



...and achieved "acceptable" results with each; while the Mk-iii model "seemed to provide slightly faster AF in conjunction with my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens. I did not notice any significant difference in IQ or AF the few times I used the 1.4x Mk-i TC on my 300mm f/4L IS lens. I never used the Mk-iii with the 300mm f/4L IS lens.

A friend in one of my photo clubs uses the Canon 2X Mk.iii TC along with his 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii lens and seems to achieve decent quality results with that combination. However, I never viewed any prints from that combination and only viewed his results on a computer monitor. He did claim that he made 11x14 inch prints and could find little, if any deterioration. We discussed this after I had purchased my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens because the TC with his 70-200mm f/2.8 L ii lens provided approximately the same focal range and aperture...

I did borrow his 2x TC for a few shots with my 70-200mm f/4L IS and did not like the results. I considered them a "lot" softer than the bare 70-200mm f/4L IS lens or my bare 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens and the AF seemed noticeably slower. I did not try the 2x TC on my 100-400L lens nor can I quantify the deterioration caused by the 2x on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens beyond saying that I did not like the images created in the few shots I used that combination for. I "might" have achieved "better" results under a more controlled condition but, I select my gear based on the results it produces under "normal" not "controlled" conditions...

I am wondering if cropping your Canon with the large file sizes might not give you equivalent (or better) quality that using a 2x TC. Perhaps a combination of cropping and adding a 1.4x iii TC?

However, the final judgement might be not whether the 2x TC will give equal results to a lens without a 2x TC (it probably won't) but, whether the 2x TC and your choice of lens will provide results "acceptable" for your purposes.

Suggest that you rent the 2x TC and the lens on which you would like to use it and see for yourself if the imagery with that combination is up to your normally high standards. It would certainly be a PITA to buy the combination and not like the results...

Note: I am writing this using a small Chromebook. Please excuse any typos in his post. Every time I proof read the post I find another typo...

[William W]

(My) “Field Tests” are different to “Lab Tests”.

There are several ways to make Field Tests. This test was to get a general grasp the differences we’d expect if we used a TS-E 17 F/4L and then used the same lens with a x1.4MkII and x2.0MkII Extender EF. (i.e. we're attempting to add a TS-E 24 F/5.6 and/or a TS-E 35 F/8 to our kit).

This field test only looks at typically shorter Subject Distances. This field test only looks what we might expect without Tilt or Shift being employed. I hope interrogation of the images is helpful to you.

Equipment: Canon 5D MkII; TS-E 17/4; x1.4 MkII Extender EF; x2.0MkII Expender EF; Tripod; Remote Release

General: Please see photo “Basic Setup”.

The camera was positioned at 90 degrees in all aspects to the Blue Wall (measured). The SD using the naked lens was 3000mm. The Camera was re-positioned proportionally, (further away), to accommodate similar framing for the shots using the x1.4 and x2.0 Extenders. The 90 degree alignment was confirmed after each Camera move.

The Scene was lit by Available Light and that was non-varying throughout the sequence. The scene exhibited a modest Dynamic Range with a variance of Harder and Softer Light. The wall chosen has printed sheets and two Art works exhibiting a variety of Surfaces and Finishes. The Foreground immediately in front of the Plane of Sharp Focus (Brass Lamp Stand) is within suitable DoF at F/4 allowing for reasonable comparisons and contrasts in this regard. The Hard Light, Camera Right allows for reasonable comparisons and contrasts of some Lens Aberrations. The reflected image of the centre sheet on the piano and the foreground Model Zebras (Camera Right) allow for other comparisons and contrasts. Bokeh cannot be compared and contrasted by this test.

Shooting: Please see Photo “Preview Sheet” showing the shooting sequence. A sequence of FOUR Images was made per Lens/Extender combination. The shot sequence of each being: F/8.0; F/5.6; F/4.0 and F/11. Each sequence of shots was made using Manual Focus via Live View using x10 mag.. Manual Focus at the centre of viewfinder, then reconfirmation of that MF at either edge.

Collation: The images were collated in Folders named “17 Naked” “17 plus 1.4” and “17 plus 2.0”. A link to each image is supplied.

Technical: ISO = 400 ISO; Mirror up Remote Release Technique; Images recorded and uploaded as JPEG L SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera). Camera Picture Style: “Standard 3,0,0,0” (‘Picture Style’ defines the camera’s Post Production Settings to produce the JPEG File)


Basic Setup


Preview Sheet

Links:
17 Naked F/4.0
17 Naked F/5.6
17 Naked F/8.0
17 Naked F/11

17 plus 1.4 F/4.0
17 plus 1.4 F/5.6
17 plus 1.4 F/8.0
17 plus 1.4 F/11

17 plus 2.0 F/4.0
17 plus 2.0 F/5.6
17 plus 2.0 F/8.0
17 plus 2.0 F/11

Please be free to download any or all of the linked images and play for your own personal use, to your heart's content.

WW

(If I get the opportunity in the next couple of weeks I will take this roadshow out to an appropriate "Scenic Spot" and pull a few more shots for you. That should make for another useful set of images. I make no promises on that one - but if you can a while longer wait I will try to get there, or I will let you know that I could not.)

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2019 WMW 1965~1996

[Donald]

Let me thank you, Bill, for taking the time to do this test. That was really helpful for the decision I have now made as this clarified matters for me totally.