May 23, 2018, 03:28:06 AM

Author Topic: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]  (Read 21865 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22599
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2017, 09:23:19 PM »
I'm still begging that the 135mm have MT-24EX support.

Even if it doesn't accept a the mount ring (with or without a Macrolite adapter), you could always mount the twin heads on a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets (or similar).  I use that setup frequently with both the 100L and MP-E 65.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2017, 09:23:19 PM »

dafrank

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • davidfranklinphoto.com
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2017, 10:13:50 PM »
That's a weird focal length selection. I suppose the 24mm mark II isn't in need of an update and the 17mm seems to be trucking along alright as it is, so if you're going to revise any of the existing TS-Es the 45mm and 90mm make the most sense. But 135mm? And macro? To me a macro tilt-shift implies product work, but 135mm is too long to give neutral perspective. 120mm would be more appropriate for that role, or 100mm. (Though I'd expect they'd feel that was too close to 90mm, unless the 100mm macro was also significantly slower.) And they're not going to pitch it as a portrait lens 'cause the 135mm f/2 is already suffering in sales from recent competition; no company ever kneecaps their own products.

I get the 45 and 90 being remade. I don't get a 135 at all. At all. 100 or 120, I'd understand. Or hell, remaking the 17mm. But a 135mm TS-E is nonsensical on par with launching a fifth 70-200 or a fourth 50mm.

Well, as a professional product (and people and architecture) photographer for about 40 years (and still very busy working), I can tell you that - surprise - a 135mm TS-E lens would probably offer the most "natural" perspective  of any other possible focal length.

Most people, because of the rules of thumb about shooting head and shoulder shots of people, mistakenly think that 135mm, for a "full frame" camera, is too long to look natural. Not true for products at all. A great example is the automobile, a product I've shot literally thousands of times for dozens of advertising and corporate clients. Most inexperienced photographers try to shoot cars with a wide angle, or perhaps a"normal" lens, feeling that the exaggerated perspective making the nearest end of the car to the camera appear to "dominate" the image, is attractive. Others try to use very long lenses taken from a very low and just off the dead center axis to create a very sexy in-your-face front or rear "7/8" image.

However, if you were to try make the image look the most natural, a 135mm lens does the best job. At 3/4 angles (the most common product view), you may observe that the apparent size of the front wheels compared to the rears are much closer to, but not exactly the same as, the amount in relation to one another that you would imagine them to be when observing the vehicle with your eyes alone. This is because you really don't see images like a camera does; one doesn't see all of an image at once - instead you "scan" the image in parts and then your brain builds a kind of composite image of the scene. When you see each part of an image separately, your brain naturally then tries to put size difference of disparate parts of an image into a more harmonious relationship in the "composited" image, no matter how the photographic perspective actually might look from your viewing distance to your subject.

If the wheels looked to be the same size, as they would with, let's say a 300mm lens, then it would look interesting but still, subconsciously, look jarringly inaccurate. Charming perhaps, but not "natural." With even a 100mm lens, and especially with wider ones than that, the differences in the apparent size of the front compared to the back wheels would be so great as to look quite odd after first noticing them. The 135 represents the "golden mean."

What this boils down to is that the 135 focal length on a full frame sensor camera does the best job of making different parts of any product of moderate size, in depth and otherwise, look like they "belong  together" with their other interconnected parts. As with cars, just about any product bigger than a grapefruit looks more "natural" when shot with a 135mm-150mm lens. I already have the excellent 90mm TS-E lens. However, if Canon makes a TS-E 135mm lens, I'll jump at the chance to buy one.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 11:06:17 PM by dafrank »
Outcomes are more important than intentions.
See my work at: http://www.davidfranklinphoto.com

Drainpipe

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • It's all about the little things.
    • Check out my Instagram!
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2017, 10:15:42 PM »
I'm still begging that the 135mm have MT-24EX support.

Even if it doesn't accept a the mount ring (with or without a Macrolite adapter), you could always mount the twin heads on a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets (or similar).  I use that setup frequently with both the 100L and MP-E 65.

Ah that's very true. I'm thinking of the MP-E 65 where the lens moves in and out. Probably won't have to worry about that on a 135mm :)
Canon 5DIV, 5DII | MP-E 65mm 1x-5x f/2.8 | 100mm f/2.8 USM | MT-24EX
My macro Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/macrobrice

jolyonralph

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 614
    • Every Other Shot
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2017, 07:49:39 AM »
Most people, because of the rules of thumb about shooting head and shoulder shots of people, mistakenly think that 135mm, for a "full frame" camera, is too long to look natural. Not true for products at all....

Can I just thank you for your excellent informed commentary on this. I've learnt something, and I'm sure others have too. This is exactly why I come here.
Jolyon Ralph

Cameras: 5DSR, A7RII, 5D III, EOS M6/M5/M3, Mavic Pro, DXO One.  Oh, and more lenses than I care to count.

dafrank

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • davidfranklinphoto.com
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2017, 01:26:07 PM »
dafrank,

What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached? :o

I never said anything was wrong with it. What I said was that there was a "rule of thumb" for 35mm film or "full frame" camera sensor cameras, and that there is one, is incontrovertible. For many decades - nearly a century, that rule of thumb was that portraits were best shot with lens focal lengths between about 80mm to 110mm, with 85mm, 90mm and 105mm lenses being the most recommended ones.

As for myself, I often shoot portraits with lens focal lengths up to about 180mm and sometimes, outdoors, even much longer. But, as is so often the case, rules are made to be broken and they are only best applied under certain circumstances.

After shooting thousands of professional portraits, I can give you some helpful information for you to use or discard as you wish.

When you shoot a person's head, their physical characteristics and lens focal length work together to make them look anywhere between good and odd.

For instance, when a person has even slightly bigger than usual ears, or if they "stick out" from the side of their heads a little more than average, lens focal length and posing angles become interconnected and determine whether the person can look their best or not. If that person with unfortunate ears (a very big portion of the population) poses with both ears at least somewhat visible, a lens longer than about 110mm starts to make that person look unfortunate. Their ear size begins to look really too big compared to the rest of their features. Even though this is a sort of an illusion, as their ears really are close to that size compared to their other features, nonetheless they still appear way less than their best. This is easily explained by perspective. Using a "too short" lens for this angle of view causes the foreground to appear bigger than the background - the simple understanding of the effects of perspective dictated by distance from the subject. In such a case, the person's close features, primarily the nose, will look way too prominent, but the ears, being in the "background" will shrink in apparent size compared to the rest of the features of the person's head. The rule-of-thumb focal length ranges, being longer, but not excessively so, will more equalize the ear to nose size relationship, while longer focal length lenses will, by even more equalizing that size relationship, make those with more prominent ears look bad. However, if you picture a person's face much more to the profile, or if their hair covers their ears, or if they have smaller and closer set ears, or you keep their ears in very dark shadow, one may use much longer focal length lenses without fear of making the subject's features look in any way disproportionate.

There is wisdom in the "rule of thumb", but one must also understand its purpose and when best to apply it to your particular situation. I hope this clears things up for you.
Outcomes are more important than intentions.
See my work at: http://www.davidfranklinphoto.com

SecureGSM

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 744
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2017, 01:33:54 PM »
Thank you very much for the clarification, Sir! Well explained and true to my humble experience.

dafrank,

What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached? :o

I never said anything was wrong with it. What I said was that there was a "rule of thumb" for 35mm film or "full frame" camera sensor cameras, and that there is one, is incontrovertible. For many decades - nearly a century, that rule of thumb was that portraits were best shot with lens focal lengths between about 80mm to 110mm, with 85mm, 90mm and 105mm lenses being the most recommended ones.

As for myself, I often shoot portraits with lens focal lengths up to about 180mm and sometimes, outdoors, even much longer. But, as is so often the case, rules are made to be broken and they are only best applied under certain circumstances.

After shooting thousands of professional portraits, I can give you some helpful information for you to use or discard as you wish.

When you shoot a person's head, their physical characteristics and lens focal length work together to make them look anywhere between good and odd.

For instance, when a person has even slightly bigger than usual ears, or if they "stick out" from the side of their heads a little more than average, lens focal length and posing angles become interconnected and determine whether the person can look their best or not. If that person with unfortunate ears (a very big portion of the population) poses with both ears at least somewhat visible, a lens longer than about 110mm starts to make that person look unfortunate. Their ear size begins to look really too big compared to the rest of their features. Even though this is a sort of an illusion, as their ears really are close to that size compared to their other features, nonetheless they still appear way less than their best. This is easily explained by perspective. Using a "too short" lens for this angle of view causes the foreground to appear bigger than the background - the simple understanding of the effects of perspective dictated by distance from the subject. In such a case, the person's close features, primarily the nose, will look way too prominent, but the ears, being in the "background" will shrink in apparent size compared to the rest of the features of the person's head. The rule-of-thumb focal length ranges, being longer, but not excessively so, will more equalize the ear to nose size relationship, while longer focal length lenses will, by even more equalizing that size relationship, make those with more prominent ears look bad. However, if you picture a person's face much more to the profile, or if their hair covers their ears, or if they have smaller and closer set ears, or you keep their ears in very dark shadow, one may use much longer focal length lenses without fear of making the subject's features look in any way disproportionate.

There is wisdom in the "rule of thumb", but one must also understand its purpose and when best to apply it to your particular situation. I hope this clears things up for you.

hne

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Gear limits your creativity
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2017, 04:28:19 AM »
Thank you so much! Post like this of yours' are pure gold.
I was already using some similar techniques, but the shadow or hair hiding the ear to be able to use a longer focal length to minimize the nose is a great new technique that I will definitely try out in the coming weeks.

dafrank,

What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached? :o

I never said anything was wrong with it. What I said was that there was a "rule of thumb" for 35mm film or "full frame" camera sensor cameras, and that there is one, is incontrovertible. For many decades - nearly a century, that rule of thumb was that portraits were best shot with lens focal lengths between about 80mm to 110mm, with 85mm, 90mm and 105mm lenses being the most recommended ones.

As for myself, I often shoot portraits with lens focal lengths up to about 180mm and sometimes, outdoors, even much longer. But, as is so often the case, rules are made to be broken and they are only best applied under certain circumstances.

After shooting thousands of professional portraits, I can give you some helpful information for you to use or discard as you wish.

When you shoot a person's head, their physical characteristics and lens focal length work together to make them look anywhere between good and odd.

For instance, when a person has even slightly bigger than usual ears, or if they "stick out" from the side of their heads a little more than average, lens focal length and posing angles become interconnected and determine whether the person can look their best or not. If that person with unfortunate ears (a very big portion of the population) poses with both ears at least somewhat visible, a lens longer than about 110mm starts to make that person look unfortunate. Their ear size begins to look really too big compared to the rest of their features. Even though this is a sort of an illusion, as their ears really are close to that size compared to their other features, nonetheless they still appear way less than their best. This is easily explained by perspective. Using a "too short" lens for this angle of view causes the foreground to appear bigger than the background - the simple understanding of the effects of perspective dictated by distance from the subject. In such a case, the person's close features, primarily the nose, will look way too prominent, but the ears, being in the "background" will shrink in apparent size compared to the rest of the features of the person's head. The rule-of-thumb focal length ranges, being longer, but not excessively so, will more equalize the ear to nose size relationship, while longer focal length lenses will, by even more equalizing that size relationship, make those with more prominent ears look bad. However, if you picture a person's face much more to the profile, or if their hair covers their ears, or if they have smaller and closer set ears, or you keep their ears in very dark shadow, one may use much longer focal length lenses without fear of making the subject's features look in any way disproportionate.

There is wisdom in the "rule of thumb", but one must also understand its purpose and when best to apply it to your particular situation. I hope this clears things up for you.
Preferred gear: 5D IV, 35/1.4L, 85/1.4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS, Elinchrom RX
Backup: 5D II, 17-40/4L, 85/1.8, 100-400/4.5-5.6L, Yongnuo + 622

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2017, 04:28:19 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22599
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2017, 01:36:28 PM »
It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles.  ...  (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).

My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop.  I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6859
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2017, 02:35:39 PM »
It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles.  ...  (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).

My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop.  I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?   ;)

Oh yes indeed!  ;)
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3577
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2017, 04:43:12 PM »
It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles.  ...  (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).

My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop.  I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?   ;)

Oh yes indeed!  ;)

Or perhaps slightly vain - the 135 mm being so flattering  ;)

LonelyBoy

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 745
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2017, 05:13:34 PM »
It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles.  ...  (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).

My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop.  I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?   ;)

Weird?  Yes.  I would also like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Maximilian

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1975
  • The dark side - I've been there
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2017, 02:11:39 AM »
It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles.  ...  (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).

My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop.  I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?   ;)
Nope! Just a photo gear geek.  :P
And someone who likes to take quality portraits.  8)

By the way, you didn't tell us anything about the bg equipment.
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

SecureGSM

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 744
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2017, 03:10:41 AM »
Canon 1DX is an excellent camera for taking selfies. Full stop. What is your favourite selfie stick brand and model?  8)

It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles.  ...  (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).

My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop.  I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?   ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2017, 03:10:41 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22599
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2017, 09:12:42 AM »
Canon 1DX is an excellent camera for taking selfies. Full stop. What is your favourite selfie stick brand and model?  8)

My selfie stick is a Really Right Stuff MC-34 carbon fiber monopod with a RRS MH-02 Pro tilt head.  :)
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

hne

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Gear limits your creativity
Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2017, 10:00:36 AM »
It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles.  ...  (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).

My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop.  I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?   ;)

Not at all, unless I'm totally wacko.

I took issue with my colleagues substandard profile pictures to the degree I offered free headshots during lunch time (limit of max 20 people). Four bags full of photographic equipment. Some people obviously thought I was crazy, but I've now got another dozen colleagues with quite acceptable profile pictures.
Preferred gear: 5D IV, 35/1.4L, 85/1.4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS, Elinchrom RX
Backup: 5D II, 17-40/4L, 85/1.8, 100-400/4.5-5.6L, Yongnuo + 622

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2017, 10:00:36 AM »