Canon TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro Sample Images

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Ahead of their full review, Photography BLOG has posted a bunch of RAW and .JPG file samples from the brand new Canon TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro.</p>
<p class="fs16 OpenSans-600-normal upper product-highlights-header">PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS</p>


<ul class="top-section-list" data-selenium="highlightList">
<li class="top-section-list-item">EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Aperture Range: f/4 to f/45</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Two Ultra-Low Dispersion Elements</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Subwavelength Coating</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Maximum Tilt: +/- 10°</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Maximum Shift: +/- 12mm</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Minimum Focusing Distance: 1.6′</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Maximum Magnification: 0.5x</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/canon_ts_e_135mm_f4_l_macro_photos"><strong>View the sample images</strong></a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[StoicalEtcher]

I know these are just sample shots ahead of a fuller review, but I'm looking forward to seeing some macro shots in due course - I'm interested to see how this new lens is going to compare image-wise to the 100 f/2.8L Macro (beyond the obvious specification details such as focal length, f-stop and tilt/shift).

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I know, I know, if you've got nothing good to say don't say anything at all.

But what a useless set of sample images. Unless somebody can tell me what I'm missing?

 

[amorse]

So Photography BLOG has posted sample images from all three new TS-Es over the last several days, all from the same location (and looks to be same time also), and didn't really explore many of the key uses for those lenses.

I mean, I'm not sure they rotated even one of those lenses before applying tilt - its almost all just tilting left and right. I'd love to see what the lenses can do for product photography and macro uses: actually keeping small subjects in focus through their depth with a wide aperture rather than just blurring the left and right sides of the images for the same creative effect over and over.

If they're not exploring other uses in their samples, I can't help but wonder what their review will reveal.

 

[LDS]

I'm looking forward to seeing some macro shots in due course - I'm interested to see how this new lens is going to compare image-wise to the 100 f/2.8L Macro (beyond the obvious specification details such as focal length, f-stop and tilt/shift).

Aren't this lenses designed for a different kind of "macro" than many people think when they hear "macro" - I mean, not your average insect/flower/etc. one, but instead product photography and the like which may imply small subjects as well, and where a 1:2 ratio is often enough?

There's a risk to be disappointed, as the member who used the 50 TS-E for that kind of macro and found it's not exactly the right lens for the job. The 100/2.8 L with its 1:1, AF and IS is very different kind of lens.

 

[SkynetTX]

So Photography BLOG has posted sample images from all three new TS-Es over the last several days, all from the same location (and looks to be same time also), and didn't really explore many of the key uses for those lenses.

Have to agree. In all three galleries we saw the same useless and low quality images with no explanation how the picture had been taken. I still don't know if TS lenses have any advantages compared to macro lenses in macro photography and if yes what they are and how to apply them.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Aren't this lenses designed for a different kind of "macro" than many people think when they hear "macro" - I mean, not your average insect/flower/etc. one, but instead product photography and the like which may imply small subjects as well, and where a 1:2 ratio is often enough?

There's a risk to be disappointed, as the member who used the 50 TS-E for that kind of macro and found it's not exactly the right lens for the job. The 100/2.8 L with its 1:1, AF and IS is very different kind of lens

::
I think you are probably right (and I wouldn't expect 1:1 of course, given the 1:2 spec), but that's why I'm keen to see some examples, much as SkynetTX says too.

 

[Architect1776]

I know these are just sample shots ahead of a fuller review, but I'm looking forward to seeing some macro shots in due course - I'm interested to see how this new lens is going to compare image-wise to the 100 f/2.8L Macro (beyond the obvious specification details such as focal length, f-stop and tilt/shift).

As has been said there is no real comparison to the 100mm macro as it is a 1:1 lens and the TSE lenses are 1:2 lenses. Now if you are looking for flat field work I would again guess the 2 different kinds of work these will be doing in the TSE will likely be used only on 3 dimensional objects. But yes it will be interesting to see real world results using the shift and tilt of these incredible lenses.

 

[basisunus]

You can get 1:1 by adding the 2x teleconverter. That'll be a 270mm F/8 1:1.

 

[st jack photography]

Hey guys, I preordered the 135L and got it about 7 Dec. I shoot with a 5dsr, and I own the older 50L and the newer 100L Macro, having upgraded from the earlier 100 Macro. With the 5dsr, even the 50L is barely good enough for the 50mp beast!
I do a lot of product photography, from jewelry up to backpack-size things. Some shooters would use a 45 or 50 tilt-shift for these larger things, but I pretty much use my 100 for everything because it is my sharpest lens. I had tse-45 with my 6d, but on the 5dsr, the 45tse revealed its limitations real quick! There are sadly not a lot of Canon's lenses up to the 50mp resolving challenge, and I suspect Canon has a special 100mop camera body they are testing their new lenses on (just a theory). Also, I do a lot of focus stacking with helicon focus and an autorail.
So anyway, I got the 135 tilt-shift because of the MTF score was outrageous and because I wanted something as an alternative to a 60-image stack, lol. I imagined I would use the 135 for about 20% of my work, and the 100mm for the rest. Why do I not use Sigma? The AF issue is too wild. Why not the 180L Macro? That lens is too old, doesnt work with 50mp.
Well, the 135 is so sharp I use it for EVERYTHING now, and I only use the 100 macro for when I need to go 1:1 life size, which is very very rarely. BUt let me tell you, even at f8, full tilt, and at MFD, the DoF is NARROW. Look at the spider image below, shot at MFD at f8. Its front legs are blurry because they are outside the DoF!!! So this is maybe why it goes to f45. I DO NOT want to stop past f11, but maybe with all that extra glass sharpness I can do it and not lose much sharpness from diffraction?
I am told a person cannot stack with a tilt-shift lens, and when I tried it the results were wonky. Can anyone chime in on this? I imagined tilting to a certain focal plane, then stacking along that plane, but I may need to use different DoF math calculations? Well, I am iffy on stacking with a TS lens.
Things I noticed about the TS-e 135L:
-Front element does not move, while the 50 and 90 appears to move.
-It came with an extra knob, but no idea what the knob is for.
-The hood allows you to adjust a polarizer without taking the hood off!!!
-The resolving power is so HIGH if you have a 5DSr the missing AA-filter will be all the more apparent. Some of my shots look like 6d shots with the AA-filter removed. Heavy duty moire too. Be prepared for this (moire).

 

[st jack photography]

Hey guys, I preordered the 135L and got it about 7 Dec. I shoot with a 5dsr, and I own the older 50L and the newer 100L Macro, having upgraded from the earlier 100 Macro. With the 5dsr, even the 50L is barely good enough for the 50mp beast!
I do a lot of product photography, from jewelry up to backpack-size things. Some shooters would use a 45 or 50 tilt-shift for these larger things, but I pretty much use my 100 for everything because it is my sharpest lens. I had tse-45 with my 6d, but on the 5dsr, the 45tse revealed its limitations real quick! There are sadly not a lot of Canon's lenses up to the 50mp resolving challenge, and I suspect Canon has a special 100mop camera body they are testing their new lenses on (just a theory). Also, I do a lot of focus stacking with helicon focus and an autorail.
So anyway, I got the 135 tilt-shift because of the MTF score was outrageous and because I wanted something as an alternative to a 60-image stack, lol. I imagined I would use the 135 for about 20% of my work, and the 100mm for the rest. Why do I not use Sigma? The AF issue is too wild. Why not the 180L Macro? That lens is too old, doesnt work with 50mp.
Well, the 135 is so sharp I use it for EVERYTHING now, and I only use the 100 macro for when I need to go 1:1 life size, which is very very rarely. BUt let me tell you, even at f8, full tilt, and at MFD, the DoF is NARROW. Look at the spider image below, shot at MFD at f8. Its front legs are blurry because they are outside the DoF!!! So this is maybe why it goes to f45. I DO NOT want to stop past f11, but maybe with all that extra glass sharpness I can do it and not lose much sharpness from diffraction?
I am told a person cannot stack with a tilt-shift lens, and when I tried it the results were wonky. Can anyone chime in on this? I imagined tilting to a certain focal plane, then stacking along that plane, but I may need to use different DoF math calculations? Well, I am iffy on stacking with a TS lens.
Things I noticed about the TS-e 135L:
-Front element does not move, while the 50 and 90 appears to move.
-It came with an extra knob, but no idea what the knob is for.
-The hood allows you to adjust a polarizer without taking the hood off!!!
-The resolving power is so HIGH if you have a 5DSr the missing AA-filter will be all the more apparent. Some of my shots look like 6d shots with the AA-filter removed. Heavy duty moire too. Be prepared for this (moire).

I tried to attach numerous images for you guys to see, but it says "you cannot post new topics". So what gives? I am trying to reply and will keep at it. So it looks like it let me upload one image. So that is a spider on a rug on a hood of a 1989 Ford Escort, taken at f8, 1/125 (I think), focal point was its 4 eyes. I think I am at +5 tilt downwards, and +6 shift upwards, and this is the MFD @ half life size. The spider was large, about 3.5cm from left leg tip to right leg tip (in the image).

 

[st jack photography]

Hey guys, I preordered the 135L and got it about 7 Dec. I shoot with a 5dsr, and I own the older 50L and the newer 100L Macro, having upgraded from the earlier 100 Macro. With the 5dsr, even the 50L is barely good enough for the 50mp beast!
I do a lot of product photography, from jewelry up to backpack-size things. Some shooters would use a 45 or 50 tilt-shift for these larger things, but I pretty much use my 100 for everything because it is my sharpest lens. I had tse-45 with my 6d, but on the 5dsr, the 45tse revealed its limitations real quick! There are sadly not a lot of Canon's lenses up to the 50mp resolving challenge, and I suspect Canon has a special 100mop camera body they are testing their new lenses on (just a theory). Also, I do a lot of focus stacking with helicon focus and an autorail.
So anyway, I got the 135 tilt-shift because of the MTF score was outrageous and because I wanted something as an alternative to a 60-image stack, lol. I imagined I would use the 135 for about 20% of my work, and the 100mm for the rest. Why do I not use Sigma? The AF issue is too wild. Why not the 180L Macro? That lens is too old, doesnt work with 50mp.
Well, the 135 is so sharp I use it for EVERYTHING now, and I only use the 100 macro for when I need to go 1:1 life size, which is very very rarely. BUt let me tell you, even at f8, full tilt, and at MFD, the DoF is NARROW. Look at the spider image below, shot at MFD at f8. Its front legs are blurry because they are outside the DoF!!! So this is maybe why it goes to f45. I DO NOT want to stop past f11, but maybe with all that extra glass sharpness I can do it and not lose much sharpness from diffraction?
I am told a person cannot stack with a tilt-shift lens, and when I tried it the results were wonky. Can anyone chime in on this? I imagined tilting to a certain focal plane, then stacking along that plane, but I may need to use different DoF math calculations? Well, I am iffy on stacking with a TS lens.
Things I noticed about the TS-e 135L:
-Front element does not move, while the 50 and 90 appears to move.
-It came with an extra knob, but no idea what the knob is for.
-The hood allows you to adjust a polarizer without taking the hood off!!!
-The resolving power is so HIGH if you have a 5DSr the missing AA-filter will be all the more apparent. Some of my shots look like 6d shots with the AA-filter removed. Heavy duty moire too. Be prepared for this (moire).

I am trying to attach images for you guys to see, but it says "you cannot post new topics". So what gives? I am trying to reply. Lame. So it looks like it let me upload one image. So lame. So that is a spider, taken at f8, focal point was its 4 eyes, a rug on a hood of a 1989 Ford Escort. I think I am at +5 tilt downwards, and +6 shift upwards, and this is the MFD. The spider was large, about 3.5cm from left leg tip to right leg tip (in the image).

 

[st jack photography]

So there are 4 or 5 shots I took with the ts-e 135L, and none of those shots could have been done as easily or as quickly and at the same apertures or sharpnesses as the 100mm f2.8 L IS lens. That 100L was my fave lens, too.
If I was just starting out with a camera body, no lenses, and I wanted to do product work, then probably ts-e 90L would be my first choice as the lens that does the most, but I chose a different path because I already owned 100L Macro, and I had owned ts-e 45 for a year or so. I use the 135L for everything now, enjoying the working distance greatly, and I only use the 100L when I need to go life size, which is rarely. I may someday add ts-e 50 or ts-e 24 for those shots that make products look hugely out of scale, but as of now ts-e 135 f4 covers about 80% of the work I do, and the 100L covers the rest. Most of my work is jewelry and Amazon products. I have owned other lenses, so I say with experience that the 50 macro is 30-year old junk, and the 180 macro is 20+ year-old overpriced junk as well. Avoid them both if you have anything over 20mp.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Thanks for posting the example photos and accompanying thoughts St Jack Photography - interesting stuff. Good to hear you are finding the lens so sharp.

 

[st jack photography]

Some more:

Spider is f8, MFD, focal point is 4 eyes, 1/160, ISO 100

All of these images were resized to either 2000px or 1170px, depending.

You can see on the 1.5cm fake opal barbell shot that the DoF was so narrow the shot is a fail since the top ball is out of DoF.

On the black bottles shot, again, super narrow DoF, so the tops were out of focus when I shot this with the 100L Macro. By using ts-e 135 instead, and tilting +3, I was able to get the entirety of all of the bottles in focus at only f8, ISO 100, 1/125, something the 100L could not do at all.

 

[st jack photography]

So Photography BLOG has posted sample images from all three new TS-Es over the last several days, all from the same location (and looks to be same time also), and didn't really explore many of the key uses for those lenses.

Have to agree. In all three galleries we saw the same useless and low quality images with no explanation how the picture had been taken. I still don't know if TS lenses have any advantages compared to macro lenses in macro photography and if yes what they are and how to apply them.

Yes, their example images were horrible and unhelpful, but there is a clear advantage of the new ts lenses. I own several primes including Zeiss glass and the 100mm L IS, and the 135 is the sharpest lens I ever tested as well as being just the best product lens I have ever used. So that nice 135mm zeiss APo-Sonnar f2 I have? I no longer have any use for it, as I can tilt and get less DoF than the f2 aperture, lol, and the 100L? I dont use it either, anymore, and it used to be my favorite lens, but now I only use it when I need to go to 1:1 with my Nissen mf18 ring light, which is pretty much never. In my several posts above, I have provided a few (of dozens of recent personal experiences) where ts-e 135 did jobs that the 100L could not do at the same settings. For example, I was able to fill over half the frame with just a spider, and a lot of the spider was in focus. With the 100 macro, at the same f8 aperture, it is not as sharp, and you could only see the eyes in sharp focus. Same thing with the necklace shots I posted; the 100 would have had 1/10 of those necklaces in focus, unless I went down to f16 or used my autorail to focus stack, both of which has cons. For my line of work, I need both the 100 L Macro and at least one good tilt-shift lens. For product work, there isn't really one lens that does it all, and as a product photographer I have 5 lenses I use regularly, so maybe this is just a niche lens, but I would say that for a product or even a portrait shooter it is a necessary part of a kit.

 

[bholliman]

Thanks for sharing your experiences and images St Jack. I don't know much about product photography, but found all of this very interesting

 

[pardus]

I have a 5DSR and am a product photographer as well. I have been interested in the 135 but not sure if manual focus is a good choice for me. My main workhorse is the 100mm 2.8L lens and it is pretty decent. I also have a zeiss 50mm macro and I struggle with the manual focus. Tethered, I can use my laptop to focus and while sharp in live view, the actual photo is a touch soft. I also notice that if I turn off live view after focusing and depress shutter, I will not get a focus confirmation. However, if I then refocus with the viewfinder, I will get a focus confirmation beep. If I then, turn live view back on with the viewfinder manual focus and confirmation, it is blurry in live view. The viewfinder shot is always better focus in the actual shot then the live view focused image.

Do you notice any difference in manual focus between live view and viewfinder and do you have that same experience when comparing the two methods?