Review: Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8L Macro by Northlight Images

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<p>No one does better tilt-shift lens reviews than Keith at Northlight Images. He has completed his exhaustive review of the Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8L, a lens he thinks is the best performing tilt-shift lens that Canon has ever made.</p>
<p><strong>From Northlight Images:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Without quantitative testing I can’t be sure, but the TS-E90mm F2.8L Macro is probably the sharpest lens I’ve ever tested (it could have been the TS-E135, but I’m not quibbling).</p>
<p>The build quality is superb, and putting it next to the old TS-E90 you really do get a feel for progress in lens construction. It is well up to its ‘L’ designation and red ring.</p>
<p>If I have a complaint, it’s the limited throw of the focus ring, which is simply too short for easy manual focus, especially at non-macro distances.</p>
<p>Optically, I couldn’t fault the new lens, it’s performance at f/2.8 is exceptional, with only vignetting to really take note of. <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/ts-e-90mm-f2-8l-macro-review/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span></p>

 

[Sabaki]

If I had the money, I'd seriously buy every Canon TS-E lens out there.

Phenomenal engineering in my humble opinion

 

[keithcooper]

Review background

Thanks Craig!

The quality of the lens compared to my old TS-E90 was an obvious improvement - and the old lens is pretty good.

Now I've finished the three new TS-E lenses, I've just the TS-E45 to do to cover all of the TS-E lenses. Fortunately Canon are lending me a TS-E45, so I can finish off with the set, although perhaps not quite the detail of the new TS-E reviews.

I'm then planning a 'grand TS-E overview', so if anyone has any specific questions or suggestions, please do let me know, here or at Northlight?

The three new lenses are superb engineering - they are on my wish list too ;-)

 

[stevelee]

I can understand (I think) why one would use a wide-angle TS lens for architecture and landscapes, particularly the shift for the former and tilts for the latter. I also follow (I think) how one would use tilts in macrophotography to deal with the tiny depth of field. Similarly, in close range, but not really macro, one might correct perspective for product photography, I would imagine.

My question is what would be some reasons for using TS lenses in the mid- to telephoto range beyond close and macro distances. What other uses might they have?

From the review, I can see examples of more distant buildings for which there seem to have been some minor perspective correction of the sort that is not a big trick in post, since from greater distances one is not going to be pointing the camera up to the same degree that one would a wide angle lens from up close. So would it be fair to consider this usage in a rarified area of seeking perfection that those of us without thousands of extra dollars lying around (and not making many thousands of dollars shooting such pictures) would normally not feel need for?

 

[keithcooper]

I can understand (I think) why one would use a wide-angle TS lens for architecture and landscapes, particularly the shift for the former and tilts for the latter. I also follow (I think) how one would use tilts in macrophotography to deal with the tiny depth of field. Similarly, in close range, but not really macro, one might correct perspective for product photography, I would imagine.

My question is what would be some reasons for using TS lenses in the mid- to telephoto range beyond close and macro distances. What other uses might they have?

From the review, I can see examples of more distant buildings for which there seem to have been some minor perspective correction of the sort that is not a big trick in post, since from greater distances one is not going to be pointing the camera up to the same degree that one would a wide angle lens from up close. So would it be fair to consider this usage in a rarified area of seeking perfection that those of us without thousands of extra dollars lying around (and not making many thousands of dollars shooting such pictures) would normally not feel need for?

You mirror many of my own thoughts about the uses of the TS-E lenses. I've had the old 90mm for several years and it's been used in not that many of my architecture/interiors jobs. It is mainly product work.

I've included examples of 'model world' shots in all the reviews, but to me these have always been of the 'done that, now what next' area of my photography ;-) They make for the interesting unusual view but the novelty wears off very quickly for me.

I have used the 90mm tilted to run the plane of focus along walls a few times (a bit like the side of the van shot in the review) but not often.

The TS-E50 is of interest to me shifted to get higher resolution rectified shots (esp. stitched) but I look at how often I've used my Mamiya 645 55mm and shift adapter enough to make me realise it won't get a lot of use.

I'd love to have the new lenses to play with, but it would be just that, since there's no way I can build a business justification that would get past Karen (my wife, who runs Northlight's marketing and finances). She knows enough about photography to know exactly which parts of our business will bring in a return on any particular new kit ;-)

Having tested the TS-E50, I decided to borrow a TS-E45 - it's possible that this 'old' slightly wider lens will actually be of more business benefit than the 50mm. Such are the vagaries of buying new kit when business this year is a bit too slack for my liking...

 

[stevelee]

Thanks, Keith, for that perspective (so to speak). I wondered if I were missing something. As I've posted in other threads, I am planning to rent a TS lens some time to play with for a week some time, and the 24mm seems to be a good fit for that purpose. For now, my new toy is the 100-400mm II, so I'm not likely to do this until the novelty of that wears off a bit. But I do enjoy shooting occasional macros, so maybe one of the TS macros might provide another week's entertainment somewhat later. And even if I don't, learning about them is interesting. Thanks for the review and for the reply.

 

[Ozarker]

I can understand (I think) why one would use a wide-angle TS lens for architecture and landscapes, particularly the shift for the former and tilts for the latter. I also follow (I think) how one would use tilts in macrophotography to deal with the tiny depth of field. Similarly, in close range, but not really macro, one might correct perspective for product photography, I would imagine.

My question is what would be some reasons for using TS lenses in the mid- to telephoto range beyond close and macro distances. What other uses might they have?

From the review, I can see examples of more distant buildings for which there seem to have been some minor perspective correction of the sort that is not a big trick in post, since from greater distances one is not going to be pointing the camera up to the same degree that one would a wide angle lens from up close. So would it be fair to consider this usage in a rarified area of seeking perfection that those of us without thousands of extra dollars lying around (and not making many thousands of dollars shooting such pictures) would normally not feel need for?

You mirror many of my own thoughts about the uses of the TS-E lenses. I've had the old 90mm for several years and it's been used in not that many of my architecture/interiors jobs. It is mainly product work.

I've included examples of 'model world' shots in all the reviews, but to me these have always been of the 'done that, now what next' area of my photography ;-) They make for the interesting unusual view but the novelty wears off very quickly for me.

I have used the 90mm tilted to run the plane of focus along walls a few times (a bit like the side of the van shot in the review) but not often.

The TS-E50 is of interest to me shifted to get higher resolution rectified shots (esp. stitched) but I look at how often I've used my Mamiya 645 55mm and shift adapter enough to make me realise it won't get a lot of use.

I'd love to have the new lenses to play with, but it would be just that, since there's no way I can build a business justification that would get past Karen (my wife, who runs Northlight's marketing and finances). She knows enough about photography to know exactly which parts of our business will bring in a return on any particular new kit ;-)

Having tested the TS-E50, I decided to borrow a TS-E45 - it's possible that this 'old' slightly wider lens will actually be of more business benefit than the 50mm. Such are the vagaries of buying new kit when business this year is a bit too slack for my liking...

Portraits.

 

[stevelee]

Portraits

How and why?

 

[keithcooper]

>> Portraits.

Yes, I've heard that mentioned a few times, but apart from them being very good 50/90/135 lenses, I'm not sure just what specific use they are in this area?

Sure, you could manage a few 'different' looking effects, but once the novelty wears off, I think that 2.5k a pop for the lenses might be a bit steep?

I'm the first to admit that I've no real interest in this area of photography (as might be clear from the reviews ;-) ) but I would genuinely be interested in seeing good uses of the new lenses in this area that went beyond the gimmicky 'model world' style stuff?

 

[stevelee]

As I think about it, if one had extremely shallow depth of field, one could use a swing to get both eyes in focus and practically everything out. I don’t know why I would ever want to do that, and they don’t make f/1.2 TS lenses that I know of. But that’s the best guess that occurs to me.

 

[danski0224]

The short focus throw is a bummer. Canon should have corrected that, especially at the price point.

 

[LDS]

>> Portraits.

Yes, I've heard that mentioned a few times, but apart from them being very good 50/90/135 lenses, I'm not sure just what specific use they are in this area?

AFAIK, they can be useful is some full- or half- body portraits when the body may not be perpendicular to the camera, or special focus effects would like to be achieved.

Still, I believe the main driver for these lenses was product photography.

 

[SkynetTX]

And we still can't see any usable macro shots. So I'd like to ask anyone who have this lens to take some shots of something not longer than 20 mm lying on a completely horizontal surface using the tilt and shift functions to let me see how the depth of field changes. It can be a flower on your desk or any insect that does you can calm down but make sure that the camera is on (almost) the same level as the subject. Thank you for your help! Take a look at my Flickr page to see what kind of photos I'd like to see.

 

[keithcooper]

Lack of Macro? No ;-)

And we still can't see any usable macro shots.

As the person taking them for that review I'm going to politely say 'WRONG'

The lens goes to 1:2 at its shortest, so the macro shots I've included are the ones you get with the lens fully tilted at its closest focus distance. (I do technical stuff in all my macro reviews, not insects/flowers I'm afraid) I do have sample shots from closer, but IMHO they show nothing of relevance to the basic TS-E90 review.

It's long enough as it stands, I do have to cut somewhere, and I simply don't see this lens as a specialist macro lens (closer focus yes - 'Macro' well YMMV)

The annotated picture also shows how much less tilt you get in adding extension tubes to get to around 1:1 - it's a simple extrapolation to estimate at closer distances.

At any longer tube use, the available tilt diminishes even further, so as to make it pretty much ineffective for any change in depth of field improvement.

See my specific example of using tubes and tilt on the old TS-E90 for more about this:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tilt-tubes-macro/

...read that one, add a tiny bit of tilt and you've pretty much got it ;-)

There is another factor though - just because Canon puts 'Macro' in big letters on a lens doesn't make it what I'd really call a macro lens. For that see my Laowa 60mm/25mm and MP-E65 reviews.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/laowa-25mm-f2-8-macro-review/

Tilt just isn't much help in close macro

 

[Ozarker]

>> Portraits.

Yes, I've heard that mentioned a few times, but apart from them being very good 50/90/135 lenses, I'm not sure just what specific use they are in this area?

Sure, you could manage a few 'different' looking effects, but once the novelty wears off, I think that 2.5k a pop for the lenses might be a bit steep?

I'm the first to admit that I've no real interest in this area of photography (as might be clear from the reviews ;-) ) but I would genuinely be interested in seeing good uses of the new lenses in this area that went beyond the gimmicky 'model world' style stuff?

Well, I for one, would only purchase one of these lenses for portraits in particular. I'm not a pro, but for the pros using these for portraits and weddings and making money on them... the novelty is for their customers. I'm not sure it is novelty as there are thousands of different ways they can be utilized for portraits, just like flash can be. The "novelty" doesn't wear off for the customer.

In fact, I was ready to buy one of these a few weeks back, but the wife wanted a new camera instead. Since our 36th anniversary was approaching, I had to do it.

A google search for tilt shift portraits by pros will show how and why they are used for this.

Our personal use for a lens isn't reflective of everyone's use. We all may not like the look, but some of us really do. I can see it being a lot of fun and a challenge for myself. So yes, I am a part of the market for this lens. Highest on my wish list.

 

[Ozarker]

>> Portraits.

Yes, I've heard that mentioned a few times, but apart from them being very good 50/90/135 lenses, I'm not sure just what specific use they are in this area?

AFAIK, they can be useful is some full- or half- body portraits when the body may not be perpendicular to the camera, or special focus effects would like to be achieved.

^^^ This^^^

 

[Ozarker]

Portraits

How and why?

Just search google for tilt shift portraits. This would actually be the only reason I would buy one, and I will by the end of the year.

 

[keithcooper]

>> Portraits.

Yes, I've heard that mentioned a few times, but apart from them being very good 50/90/135 lenses, I'm not sure just what specific use they are in this area?

Sure, you could manage a few 'different' looking effects, but once the novelty wears off, I think that 2.5k a pop for the lenses might be a bit steep?

I'm the first to admit that I've no real interest in this area of photography (as might be clear from the reviews ;-) ) but I would genuinely be interested in seeing good uses of the new lenses in this area that went beyond the gimmicky 'model world' style stuff?

Well, I for one, would only purchase one of these lenses for portraits in particular. I'm not a pro, but for the pros using these for portraits and weddings and making money on them... the novelty is for their customers. I'm not sure it is novelty as there are thousands of different ways they can be utilized for portraits, just like flash can be. The "novelty" doesn't wear off for the customer.

In fact, I was ready to buy one of these a few weeks back, but the wife wanted a new camera instead. Since our 36th anniversary was approaching, I had to do it.

A google search for tilt shift portraits by pros will show how and why they are used for this.

Our personal use for a lens isn't reflective of everyone's use. We all may not like the look, but some of us really do. I can see it being a lot of fun and a challenge for myself. So yes, I am a part of the market for this lens. Highest on my wish list.

Yes, I try and cover as much as possible in the reviews, but there comes a point where my abject disinterest and lack of experience of a subject would get in the way of producing meaningful examples ;-)

I take your point about different tastes, but like with the ongoing popularity of HDR, some things just continue to mystify me ;-) I did your suggested search and rather too many of the results were tacky in the extreme (very much YMMV!)

Hopefully there is enough other info in the review to give a feel for the lens performance though.

I'd suggest you give the existing TS-E90 a go if you can borrow one, it really is still a nice lens to use, and actually easier to work with (manual focus) at moderate distances than the TS-E90 F2.8L which I found a bit 'twitchy' for precise manual focus.

Canon have just sent me the TS-E45 to try out, so who knows, maybe a photo of people will make it into the next review...

 

[stevelee]

I remember seeing some of those tacky pictures a while back, but they didn't come to mind when someone brought up portraits.

But some of those could be fun, and if people were paying me enough money to make those kinds of shots, I'd likely do some. Maybe I could transcend the gimmickry. I might enjoy the challenge. At least I'd pay for a TS lens that way.

Because of my past occupation, I try to avoid weddings as much as possible. I have performed only one since I retired. I last played the organ for a wedding a little over ten years ago. And I last made pictures at a wedding about 1970 when I got permission to hide in the balcony and shoot available light in a university chapel where pictures were not allowed until after the ceremony.

 

[Ozarker]

I remember seeing some of those tacky pictures a while back, but they didn't come to mind when someone brought up portraits.

But some of those could be fun, and if people were paying me enough money to make those kinds of shots, I'd likely do some. Maybe I could transcend the gimmickry. I might enjoy the challenge. At least I'd pay for a TS lens that way.

Because of my past occupation, I try to avoid weddings as much as possible. I have performed only one since I retired. I last played the organ for a wedding a little over ten years ago. And I last made pictures at a wedding about 1970 when I got permission to hide in the balcony and shoot available light in a university chapel where pictures were not allowed until after the ceremony.

Well, I guess some might call it tacky or gimmicky. I don't understand that. Tacky would be a matter of personal taste, of course. Gimmick? I'm not sure for myself. Done right, it is great to my old eyes. I don't see anything devious about the style that would make it a gimmick. A valid tool in the right hands. Here's a video of a pro using TS at an air museum. Shots not possible with a standard lens.

You did ask how and why. The answers to that are everywhere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDCW_8AsSo