Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR3]

[keithcooper]

Re: Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR2]

What would the three different lens be useful for in terms of macro. Would the they have different uses? What would be advantage of 50mm over 90mm or 135mm. Does a 135mm give you a bigger practical magnification? Is it just a focal length thing i.e. A wider field of view at 50mm. Would a 50mm have a shorter focussing distance?
How better than a 100mm macro would these be. Would I get an equivalent say F22 depth of field at F2.8.
Will exposure fool the camera like it does when shift or tilt one of the current TS-E lens (I use the 24mm TS-E currently)

At the same magnification, the working distance changes with focal length, and as such the perspective changes too - just like at 'normal' scales.

Effective aperture and effective focal length all change once you get close - just how depends on lens design, as well as distance.

Auto exposure and tilt/shift don't work well together - I shoot macro and tilt/shift fully manually for all the stuff I do (industrial macro and architecture are both parts of my 'day job')

Add in flash heads, and they are all set manually too - in this area, 'auto' just becomes too unpredictable

Macro -and- T/S ? No way would I be using auto anything ;-)

 

[Antono Refa]

Re: Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR2]

I'm struck by the number of Canon primes in the 85-100mm range, and there are also a bunch of zooms covering the range too. Not sure where the 85 f1.4 IS would be most likely to fit in. Very high performance? Yes. Pickle jar big? Not so sure. Maybe the slot is as a high end workhorse that would pair up with the 35LII.

There are five primes in the 85-100mm range:

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

TS-E 90mm f/2.8

EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Taking into account abilities targeted at specific audiences (portraiture, architecture, macro) and price points, I think five lenses is a reasonable number of lenses.

Yes, there are at least a dozen zoom lenses covering that range. Proves how useful it is.

 

[symmar22]

Re: Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR2]

I have a question about TS-E "long" lenses for architecture.

For architecture it is extremely useful shifting a wide angle lens: it removes the highly distorted areas close to the photographer, placing more emphasis in the subject and augmenting the "effective" wide angle (e.g. more room for the top of the buildings).

I feel the need of shifting even at 35mm (I sometimes even instinctively drive my hand to the unexistent knob! ) but I assume that at 45mm the amount of shifting will be really low to keep the image beautiful (too much shifting may be unnatural/ugly even at 17mm). I was interested in the 45 TS-E (I have not bought it mostly because is old and unsharp) but if the new replacement is even longer, at 50mm, I wonder if the shifting allowance for proper architectural shots still justifies it.

Those using the 45mm for architecture... how much do you typically shift it?

Maybe a normal 50mm lens slightly corrected for keystoning will suffice, if I were to shift it by only 1 or 2 mm. There are lot of choices at 50mm in normal lenses (ok, not yet any one interesting from Canon) also more suitable for other non-architectural uses, for those of us which don't plain to tilt.

I use all 4 TS-E as my main lenses for work, the 17 mainly for interiors, the 24 and 45 for architecture outside and indoors, the 90 for details, architecture when I have enough distance and in the studio for product photography.

The answer to how much shift is as much as I need. The main problem with the 45 TS-E is to deal with the terrible chroma, the cyan/red can be mostly removed in post, but then some purple fringing comes when you shift a bit. Actually, mine is very sharp (on a 5DSr), when used properly.

The other problem is the very curved field of focus, that forces to use f11 (mostly f16 in my case) to have it sharp from corner to corner. It seems it is one of the TS-E whith a lot of copy variation, I got 2 of them, the first one had a very different behaviour from the one I use now, Brian on the Digital Picture seems to agree with me. I love the lens, but it's tricky to use, tripod always, careful focusing on the side of the frame, and stop down like hell, you'll get excellent results with a bit of post processing.

Hence I am a bit disappointed by the 50mm focal length of the new one, I was actually hoping for a 40mm, much more useful in architecture, as a true "normal" lens.

The difference might seem trivial, but as a view camera user, the 150mm is my normal lens, I never could get used to the 180mm that is a 50mm equivalent. The real "standard" lens for 24x36mm is 43mm.

 

[H. Jones]

Re: Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR2]

I swear every time I hear an update on the 85mm f/1.4L IS Canon is deliberately trying to get me to switch to using primes. So far every detail has practically been the ideal prime for me and it's just getting better each time. "Between" the f/1.2 and f/1.8? I swear Canon, I'm not a big prime lens guy, but if this lens costs even a dollar less than the 85mm f/1.2L II right now, I'm probably gonna end up pre-ordering it..

I was incredibly surprised by the 16-35mm f/4L IS, so here's hoping Canon does it again.

 

[-1]

Re: Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR2]

I swear every time I hear an update on the 85mm f/1.4L IS Canon is deliberately trying to get me to switch to using primes. So far every detail has practically been the ideal prime for me and it's just getting better each time. "Between" the f/1.2 and f/1.8? I swear Canon, I'm not a big prime lens guy, but if this lens costs even a dollar less than the 85mm f/1.2L II right now, I'm probably gonna end up pre-ordering it..

I was incredibly surprised by the 16-35mm f/4L IS, so here's hoping Canon does it again.

The 85mm is a good match to a WA zoom like a 16-35mm. The classic PJ combo for the trenches was a 35 and a 90 on the Leica M2s...

I have a Takumar 85/1.9 and a 17-40/4 L for my 1D2. Plus the EF-M 22/2.0 and the FD 50/1.8 for the EOS-M...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR2]

I think my old TS-E 90mm already has a macro ratio of 1:2 even if it's not called a macro lens...

You sure about that? TDP says it's a 0.29x max mag (without tubes, of course).

- A

The TSe 90mm was often used for product / food photography, not for it's macro abilities but for it's Schlemflug principle...and that it's a telephoto. It can easily throw things in and out of focus really nicely, especially for that particular application. Having a lens that can do that and focus closer is only going to add to the ease of that particular application...although it does increase the need for a tripod. Tse's are best podded in my opinion.

 

[H. Jones]

Re: Clarification & Corrections on the Upcoming New Lenses from Canon [CR2]

I swear every time I hear an update on the 85mm f/1.4L IS Canon is deliberately trying to get me to switch to using primes. So far every detail has practically been the ideal prime for me and it's just getting better each time. "Between" the f/1.2 and f/1.8? I swear Canon, I'm not a big prime lens guy, but if this lens costs even a dollar less than the 85mm f/1.2L II right now, I'm probably gonna end up pre-ordering it..

I was incredibly surprised by the 16-35mm f/4L IS, so here's hoping Canon does it again.

The 85mm is a good match to a WA zoom like a 16-35mm. The classic PJ combo for the trenches was a 35 and a 90 on the Leica M2s...

I have a Takumar 85/1.9 and a 17-40/4 L for my 1D2. Plus the EF-M 22/2.0 and the FD 50/1.8 for the EOS-M...

I got a 35mm f/1.4L II loaned to me by CPS a while ago and used it on a few assignments and loved it--I could totally see this lens and the 35mm being all I really need on most feature/general news assignments. That said, it would be really tough for me to live without my 24-70mm f/2.8L II close at hand--that lens has been through hell and back with me and has always gotten the job done.

 

[photojoern.de]

Can anybody explain me why this should create a hype? I wonder why Canon put effort into these lenses. Who the heck is using the tilt shift lenses around 40mm and longer? For what? Very much niche photography, isn´t it? I use a 17mm Tilt shift, which is nice in some cases of archicecture photography, but I never felt that I would miss anything around 35mm or more tele. Please help me out.

 

[keithcooper]

Can anybody explain me why this should create a hype? I wonder why Canon put effort into these lenses. Who the heck is using the tilt shift lenses around 40mm and longer? For what? Very much niche photography, isn´t it? I use a 17mm Tilt shift, which is nice in some cases of archicecture photography, but I never felt that I would miss anything around 35mm or more tele. Please help me out.

Well, I use the TS-E90 (with and without ex tubes) for product work

As to the longer focal lengths for architecture, I went out yesterday to remind myself about the 35/55mm Mamiya MF lenses I use with a shift adapter - not often, but the give a useful 'extra' to my normal use of the TS-E17 and TS-E24

Up/Down stitched shot at 55mm

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/shift-lens-50mm/

Partly to answer my own curiosity at to whether I want/need a TS-E 50mm ?

The 135 is a very likely buy for my small product work such as the Gummy bears pic I posted earlier

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/macro-photography-for-trade-stand/

 

[sulla]

I wonder - read: doubt - whether you would see any noticeable effect from that 210mm shifted lens example a few posts earlier. The perspective shift that a 210mm lens permits will be minimal...

I already do not find the perspective-shift of my TS-E 90 to be dramatic. A shifted TS 135mm lens will have even less of a perspective change. The only use I find with shifting the TS 90 is to correct for image shift while tilting.

Tilting a 135mm lens, however, will be extremely useful.

 

[keithcooper]

I wonder - read: doubt - whether you would see any noticeable effect from that 210mm shifted lens example a few posts earlier. The perspective shift that a 210mm lens permits will be minimal...

The only reason that 210mm is in the list was that it was in the 25/55/85/210 collection of Mamiya lenses I have, and it seemed a shame to leave it out ;-)

It's always there, if I need it, but as yet the need has never arisen...

 

[sulla]

The only reason that 210mm is in the list was that it was in the 25/55/85/210 collection of Mamiya lenses I have, and it seemed a shame to leave it out ;-)

Nice demo, then!