New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/new-canon-tilt-shift-lenses-at-photokina-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/new-canon-tilt-shift-lenses-at-photokina-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Another mention of new Canon tilt-shift lenses. Replacements for the TS-E 45 f/2.8 and TS-E 90 f/2.8 are expected. We’ve heard there’s a possibility of 3 new tilt-shift lenses, but we do not know what the third one could be. Apparently the new lenses will be shown at Photokina 2014 in September.</p>
<p>We’ve had a couple of people speculate that a macro tilt-shift lens could be a possibility for Canon. We have heard of a new and interesting macro lens was in development, but we’ve never received any details of what would make it “interesting”.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[mackguyver]

If they're half as good as the new Ls, I'll be buying all of them eventually!

 

[Dylan777]

It does sound like "the year of lenses"

 

[mackguyver]

It does sound like "the year of lenses"

Yes, and September sure is taking forever to get here!

 

[Random Orbits]

It does sound like "the year of lenses"

Yes, and September sure is taking forever to get here!

It just gives you a bit more time to save up. Have fun with the TS-E 17. It is a sweet lens!

 

[mackguyver]

It does sound like "the year of lenses"

Yes, and September sure is taking forever to get here!

It just gives you a bit more time to save up. Have fun with the TS-E 17. It is a sweet lens!

Very true, and my lens is sitting at Kinko's FedEx Office right now - just a few more hours until I have it in my hands!

 

[jrista]

I would love a Macro TS. I love creative focus, but on the flip side, a TS lens for macro would let you maximize your depth of field without having to use extremely small apertures, which means you can resolve even more detail. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[privatebydesign]

I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.

 

[jrista]

I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.

I suspect if Canon is actually designing a Macro TS lens, they have probably taken all of those things into account. They are going to be NEW lenses, after all. We'll have to wait and see...but I still think a controllable focal plane would be useful for macro.

 

[keithcooper]

Macro and tilt can indeed be useful. I use a TS-E90 quite often with bellows or extension tubes.

As has been noted though, just tilting doesn't give more DOF, just 're-arranges' it to some extent ;-) Macro and camera movements are part of why I built a DSLR back for an old 5x4 camera some time ago. Interesting to play about with, but not something I've had a lot of practical use for.

None of the TS rumours I've seen have any real detail (no surprise there) but I have had several comments relating to encoders in lenses, putting T/S info into EXIF data (there was a Canon patent some time ago potentially related to this).

Still looking forward to what might turn up... ;-)

 

[SoullessPolack]

I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.

First of all, Canon has obviously thought about this if these lenses in fact do exist. A multibillion dollar corporation is not going to dismiss these most relevant of aspects. You're not the first person to think about this.

Secondly, do you have actual calculations to show what you claim, or are you just guessing? Would you be able to support your claims? I clearly don't have enough knowledge, and that's why I can't say whether you're right or wrong. Thanks in advance for your response.

 

[privatebydesign]

I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.

First of all, Canon has obviously thought about this if these lenses in fact do exist. A multibillion dollar corporation is not going to dismiss these most relevant of aspects. You're not the first person to think about this.

Secondly, do you have actual calculations to show what you claim, or are you just guessing? Would you be able to support your claims? I clearly don't have enough knowledge, and that's why I can't say whether you're right or wrong. Thanks in advance for your response.

Why would you assume I didn't think Canon would think of this? I am fully cognisant of the fact that I am not the first to think of anything, and am quite content with that realization. My point wasn't that Canon hadn't thought it through, it was posters clamouring for a macro T/S probably haven't.

Second, with regards calculations I can give you THE BOOK. http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/index.html#FVC I can also point you to Harold M. Merklinger's two gif's that demonstrate the maths on Keith Coopers own page (I can't believe I am talking tilt shift with Keith Cooper ) here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html

To clarify my earlier answer. Macro T/S would have some limited benefit, particularly for small product work, such as ladies watches and jewelry, circuit boards and microchips, something with a flat, or close to it, face, something you might well use the current 90 TS/E and a tube for. But it wouldn't help the typical macro shot of a fly's head type scenario at all.

Macro and tilt can indeed be useful. I use a TS-E90 quite often with bellows or extension tubes.

As has been noted though, just tilting doesn't give more DOF, just 're-arranges' it to some extent ;-) Macro and camera movements are part of why I built a DSLR back for an old 5x4 camera some time ago. Interesting to play about with, but not something I've had a lot of practical use for.

None of the TS rumours I've seen have any real detail (no surprise there) but I have had several comments relating to encoders in lenses, putting T/S info into EXIF data (there was a Canon patent some time ago potentially related to this).

Still looking forward to what might turn up... ;-)

I have written here before about the possibility of tilt and shift data being recorded to auto correct vignetting and CA though using the expanded canvass method works well at the moment and any auto settings would almost certainly necessitate a dreaded trip into DPP, but something like the Hasselblad HTS 1.5 Tilt Shift adapter does but built into the lens makes sense. Plus the recent patent for the display of the plane of focus as a perspective grid on the LCD or computer, a much finer geared tilt would be welcome too, as well as the now compulsory seamless tilt and shift orientation rotation.

Make the IQ as good as the 24 TS-E MkII and reduce the body/rear tilt needed for parallel lines in retrofocus designed T/S lenses when using tilt/swing, which are both much easier the longer the focal length, and Canon will have two or three winners.

 

[jrista]

To clarify my earlier answer. Macro T/S would have some limited benefit, particularly for small product work, such as ladies watches and jewelry, circuit boards and microchips, something with a flat, or close to it, face, something you might well use the current 90 TS/E and a tube for. But it wouldn't help the typical macro shot of a fly's head type scenario at all.

I think your missing some of the potential that a TS lens has for macro. Improving the DOF does not necessarily only mean making it deeper. I think you are also stuck on the notion that the only use for TS is simply to create a deep wedge of focus. I've done my fair share of fly eye macro photos, and even when you maximize your DOF, the usual case is that you can still see depth of field falloff around the eye. It wouldn't take that much tilt to allow you to orient the focal plane such that it maximizes DOF on a fly eye, without needing to actually tilt the lens to it's maximum to create a deep wedge. The wedge isn't even necessary, all that's necessary is to align the focal plane around the plane of your subject.

That's often simply what achieving focus is about. In bird photography, it's the same deal. You either wait for the bird to move such that it's oriented parallel to the plane of the sensor, or you move yourself to achieve the same thing. The depth of field can then be very thin, but all that matters is that the FRONT HALF of the bird be in focus. The back side of the bird can be entirely out of focus, but it doesn't matter, because you can't see it.

A TS Macro would give you more control and more freedom to orient your focal plane such that it maximizes DOF around the parts of your subject your interested in. Maybe that means creating a maximum wedge. Maybe it simply means a slight reorientation of the focal plane without creating a wedge, and simply aligning the focal plane in such a way that a greater percentage of your subject that is facing at least generally in the direction of the sensor is parallel to and within the focal plane (even if the focal plane isn't parallel to the sensor anymore). In the latter case, more fine grained control over tilt is even more important than doubling the amount of tilt.

Here is one of my more recent fly macro shots:

You can clearly see the DOF falloff on the back part of the eye, because the eye is not parallel to the sensor. It wouldn't have taken much tilt to reorient the focal plane to be parallel to the eye, thus solving the problem.

 

[Rudeofus]

The question still remains, how much tilting you can achieve with an SLR camera where you have to account for the mirror box. Even in medium format T&S is mostly seen as toy, only large format cameras give you the flexibility to take full advantage of the Scheimpflug principle.

 

[keithcooper]

The question still remains, how much tilting you can achieve with an SLR camera where you have to account for the mirror box. Even in medium format T&S is mostly seen as toy, only large format cameras give you the flexibility to take full advantage of the Scheimpflug principle.

A very useful toy if you take the opportunity to explore the limitations and capabilities ;-)

For my own work, the limitations of having to shoot Large Format would vastly outweigh the convenience of smaller format cameras, but YMMV.

When I experimented with making an adapter for my MPP 5x4 it is indeed the mirror box and mount aperture that limits movements - still fun to try though ;-)

 

[jrista]

The question still remains, how much tilting you can achieve with an SLR camera where you have to account for the mirror box. Even in medium format T&S is mostly seen as toy, only large format cameras give you the flexibility to take full advantage of the Scheimpflug principle.

Well, if private's information is correct, Canon currently allows up to 8° of tilt freedom. If all your really doing is slightly shifting the focal plane to align with the primary plane of your subject, I think most of the time you'll be quite fine with 8°. That assumes Canon doesn't find a way to improve that range. There are always going to be certain circumstances where TS just doesn't and cannot offer you the flexibility you might potentially need, however having TS capabilities with macro at all is still an improvement over not having it.

 

[zagga]

Tilt in a macro lens is on the verge of pointless, shift on the other hand would be quite useful.

However, a lens optimised for close focusing (rather than infinity) with a VERY large image circle and TS-E capability would be an excellent lens.

 

[Rudeofus]

Tilt in macro is certainly not pointless if it is done correctly, and several good examples have been already listed in this very thread. Large format cameras were never used for their convenience or ease of use, they were professional tools to be used when smaller cameras couldn't do the job properly.

The reason why I brought up medium format cameras is their bigger size compared to DSLRs which gives designers extra degrees of freedom and the traditionally low price sensitivity of the medium format market. If decent T&S was available for medium format, an improvement in fine mechanics, manufacturing and lens design could well trickle down into the world of small format cameras. Since this is not the case, I would not expect much from a DSLR compatible T&S macro lens, even if it bears the Canon label.

 

[zagga]

Tilt in macro is certainly not pointless if it is done correctly, and several good examples have been already listed in this very thread.

In the context of this topic they are. We are talking Canon TS-E's here not Arca Swiss and Rodenstocks.

I fail to see how a Canon camera and Macro TS-E focused on a fly's eye would gain any significant improvements in focus depth using 8°-12° of tilt/swing. You might be able to move the plane of focus but thats not exactly what most people hope for when talking TS-E lenses as can be seen when ever macro and TS-E are mentioned in the same sentance.

 

[zagga]

Here is one of my more recent fly macro shots:

You can clearly see the DOF falloff on the back part of the eye, because the eye is not parallel to the sensor. It wouldn't have taken much tilt to reorient the focal plane to be parallel to the eye, thus solving the problem.

I think if you added tilt to that image you possibly might be able to shift the plane of focus enough to bring the back of the fly's eye into focus but then all the front part of the face would be out of focus.