New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]

[ScottyP]

It does sound like "the year of lenses"

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

I am glad you guys are getting something you are excited about, so don't take it the wrong way when I say this, but I really don't think a couple of tilt-shift lenses alone, macro or not, constitute what must people would look back on to call 2014 "the YEAR OF THE LENS". (Cue sound of trumpet fanfare).

They may be great lenses but they are of fairly narrow appeal. I doubt 10% of even pro photographers use tilt shift lenses, and the percent of all photographers using them must be smaller than that. I am sure the people who do use them get very good use out of them, and again, i am happy for you here, but They need to come out with some more lenses before this year will go down in history for lens introductions, IMHO.

 

[jrista]

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.

Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.

Having MORE capabilities is NEVEr useless. It can't be...it's more capabilities.

 

[zagga]

Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.

Having MORE capabilities is NEVEr useless. It can't be...it's more capabilities.

But the TS-E only tilt in one direction, no tilt and swing. While the rotating mount in nice it won't help in this situation IMO. Tilting and moving the plane of focus will only move the slice of sharp focus to different parts of the fly's eye/head and not bring all the head into sharp focus.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.

Having MORE capabilities is NEVEr useless. It can't be...it's more capabilities.

But the TS-E only tilt in one direction, no tilt and swing. While the rotating mount in nice it won't help in this situation IMO. Tilting and moving the plane of focus will only move the slice of sharp focus to different parts of the fly's eye/head and not bring all the head into sharp focus.

Of course you can use tilt and swing with the Canon TS-E lenses. You can only tilt/ swing one way initially, but then you rotate to compound the movements.

 

[jrista]

Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.

Having MORE capabilities is NEVEr useless. It can't be...it's more capabilities.

But the TS-E only tilt in one direction, no tilt and swing. While the rotating mount in nice it won't help in this situation IMO. Tilting and moving the plane of focus will only move the slice of sharp focus to different parts of the fly's eye/head and not bring all the head into sharp focus.

Well, first, in the case of the sample photo I shared, I absolutely do believe a TS Macro lens would allow me to get the whole head in focus. The entire actual head, front to back, would not literally be all within the depth of field, but again, that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the part of the fly's head that is visible is sharp and within the depth of field. It's a fly. The DOF doesn't have to be that thick to achieve that goal. Without T/S, you have to stop the lens down CONSIDERABLY in order to deepen the depth of field enough to encompass enough of the fly's head to make it all appear sharp, however it can never be as sharp at f/32 as it could be at f/11. With a TS lens, just a little bit of tilt and rotation will allow you to adjust the plane of focus such that you can maximize the potential an f/11 DOF has, and not need to stop down to f/32 (which will obliterate a lot of detail due to diffraction.)

More capabilities are more capabilities. It isn't going to magically make it so you can use f/2.8 for macro, but it will give you options you did not have before. It will allow you to utilize the DOF you have at less diffraction limited apertures more effectively. That's the entire point. That's what a bellows in old MF and LF view and field cameras were for, not really for "creative" focus, but to give you more options to maximize your use of the DOF you have at wider (and thus, less diffraction limited and therefor sharper) apertures.

It doesn't matter the degree of the additional capabilities. Having them at all, limited or extremely capable, is better than NOT having them. That's all my argument is.

 

[epsiloneri]

But the TS-E only tilt in one direction, no tilt and swing. While the rotating mount in nice it won't help in this situation IMO.

Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation

 

[zagga]

Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation

Tilt or swing = tilt+rotation

 

[jrista]

Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation

Tilt or swing = tilt+rotation

All that matters is that Canon TS lenses have three degrees of freedom:

Tilt
Shift
Rotation

With those, you have the same general controls as any other TS lens, and the same general controls as a lens+bellows in a view/field camera. There aren't any control limitations with Canon lenses. They allow full focal plane control, the only real limitation is how much tilt is allowed. Again, though, in the macro context, that doesn't really matter. It's additional control, control you don't currently have. Those additional adjustments give you the ability to make better use of your focal plane and DOF.

What terms you or anyone else prefers to use to describe the adjustments is irrelevant, all that matters is all three movements are possible with Canon TS lenses.

 

[epsiloneri]

Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation

Tilt or swing = tilt+rotation

Hm, let me put it like this then: if the tilt decides how forward you go, and swing how far to the left you go, then you can achieve the same result by first taking the bearing (rotating) and going only forward (tilt). It is the same thing, and not a matter of opinion.

 

[keithcooper]

swing/tilt

If I rotate the tilting axis of a TS-E lens 90 degrees I can go from up/down tilt to left/right swing

On the front standard of my MPP 5x4 (the only view camera I have here) I have side to side swing -and- up/down tilt at the same time. [There are other more complex movements, but they resolve to putting a lens axis at an arbitrary position and orientation in front of the film/sensor]

By combining tilt and swing I am obtaining the equivalent of tilting the lens on an arbitrary axis (pointing it in a particular direction), just what I can do with a TS-E via a combination of tilt and rotation (I also have a direct reading of actual tilt, so can use my tilt tables to get my 'J' distance)

The two rotations required for an arbitrary 'combined' tilt are different with the two approaches, thus may be easier (depending on your background/experience) to visualise one way or the other.

I would never claim that the degrees of freedom of a TS-E lens on a DSLR match the gymnastics you can get from (skilled) use of the movements of a view camera ;-) However, both require a degree of mental geometry and visualisation that I know from experience trying to teach people use of TS-E lenses, can be more obvious to some than others.

I'm sure I'm helped in this from my past experience as a geologist, mentally visualising intersecting planes (faults/bedding etc.) in space in front of me

BTW I don't feel that learning all the maths of camera movements is of the slightest value to any but a tiny minority of photographers, indeed in all the stuff I've written about the subject I've tried to avoid as much maths as possible (put an equation into the middle of an article and you'll reduce the number of people making it to the end by 50% ;-)

The TS-E 45 and 90 could do with updating with the newer more flexible T/S movements. EXIF data would be nice.
My suspicion is that any macro with movements would be a 'because we can' project with a rather hefty price tag...

 

[jrista]

a) I absolutely do believe a TS Macro lens would allow me to get the whole head in focus.

b) It doesn't matter the degree of the additional capabilities. Having them at all, limited or extremely capable, is better than NOT having them. That's all my argument is.

Your letter argument b) is certainly valid. However, having worked with various medium- and large-Format Macro-lenses tilted on FF, including the 80mm Apo-Rodagon allowing for 20 degree tilt, I can assure you tilting would have caused very little gain of DOF with the Fly's head. You are making wrong assumtions. Even tilted to 20 degrees, you would not be able to bring the focal plane parallel with the front of the head. And if you did, not even f32 would allow you to have both the front and the back of the head in focus. Tilting is of relatively little effect in the Macro range, DOF when stopping down remains limited as always. Lets just say: You might be able to slightly rearrange what is NOT in focus, but you will hardly create visibly more DOF. But even for isolating at open aperture, Tilting in the macro-range has probably much less effect than you might assume.

As was said before, tilting is great for product photography, especially of flat subjects. SD-Cards, Cigarette-Packs etc. It can also help photographing large dragonflys or Camera-lens-combinations front-sideways with max. DOF in a single shot (no stacking). But it will not help DOF in the shot you posted. I will not post examples. I am through with that matter. Please trust my evaluation.

If you definately need this extra bit of freedom, even though it is not very often of practical use and will be a bit clumsy in the outdoors (though leight-weight), I can recommend the APO-Rodagon 80mm with the Zörk-joint (see Zörk Munich). Personally, because I agree with your latter argument b), I am using the Pentax 67 100mm Macro with a tilt adapter allowing for 10 degrees of tilt. But I hardly ever waste time tilting with subjects as close as your fly. For me it is mainly a way of having two lenses in one (regular 100mm Tilt plus a regular Macro). In addition, it has the abilty to shift or to be used with digital medium-format. The APO-Rodagon I will only take along when I know I will have plain+little subjects to photograph that need perfection. I will always use it at f11 to 16 then, after that, diffraction becomes too visible. As far as flies' heads are concerned, fumbling with tilting will only wear down the animal's tolerance.

Your up-front refusal to provide any evidence to back up your claims only gives me immediate cause to doubt you. So sorry, but I cannot trust your evaluation. There is no reason to trust your evaluation. You can't simply say "I'm 'through' with backing up my assertions with evidence." and expect that to win you any awards.

Again, the point is not to get the fly's head from front to back within the DOF. The back side of the head is immaterial, you can't see it anyway. All that matters is that you change the focal plane such that it aligns with, or at least aligns BETTER with, the primary angle of the key part of your subject that you want in focus. Aligning your focal plane at all is an improvement, and gives you more freedom to possibly reduce your DOF and gain back some of the resolution lost to a super narrow aperture.

In the case of my fly, which BTW was shot hand-held at f/5.6 with a mere 1/100th second shutter, that means angling the plane closer on the right to farther on the left, and with a certain amount of rotation such that it also angles across the top part of the fly's head. Stop down a bit more, say to f/11, drop the camera onto a tripod/focusing rail, and I absolutely have no doubt that even the SLIGHT movements allowed by a current Canon TS lens would allow me to maximize my use of DOF to improve the amount of my fly's head that was in focus, without necessitating stopping down to the minimum aperture.

If Canon's new line of TS lenses offer greater freedom in the adjustments they offer, it doesn't matter if a 20° movement in macro space isn't as good as the same movement for landscapes. It's still better to have the option of tilt than not. It will give you some degree of control over adjusting your focal plane around your subject. It does not magically increase your DOF, of course not. However it lets you control your focal plane such that more of your DOF envelops more of your subject without forcing you to lose resolution to more diffraction by stopping down to obscene levels.

 

[SoullessPolack]

a) I absolutely do believe a TS Macro lens would allow me to get the whole head in focus.

b) It doesn't matter the degree of the additional capabilities. Having them at all, limited or extremely capable, is better than NOT having them. That's all my argument is.

Your letter argument b) is certainly valid. However, having worked with various medium- and large-Format Macro-lenses tilted on FF, including the 80mm Apo-Rodagon allowing for 20 degree tilt, I can assure you tilting would have caused very little gain of DOF with the Fly's head. You are making wrong assumtions. Even tilted to 20 degrees, you would not be able to bring the focal plane parallel with the front of the head. And if you did, not even f32 would allow you to have both the front and the back of the head in focus. Tilting is of relatively little effect in the Macro range, DOF when stopping down remains limited as always. Lets just say: You might be able to slightly rearrange what is NOT in focus, but you will hardly create visibly more DOF. But even for isolating at open aperture, Tilting in the macro-range has probably much less effect than you might assume.

As was said before, tilting is great for product photography, especially of flat subjects. SD-Cards, Cigarette-Packs etc. It can also help photographing large dragonflys or Camera-lens-combinations front-sideways with max. DOF in a single shot (no stacking). But it will not help DOF in the shot you posted. I will not post examples. I am through with that matter. Please trust my evaluation.

If you definately need this extra bit of freedom, even though it is not very often of practical use and will be a bit clumsy in the outdoors (though leight-weight), I can recommend the APO-Rodagon 80mm with the Zörk-joint (see Zörk Munich). Personally, because I agree with your latter argument b), I am using the Pentax 67 100mm Macro with a tilt adapter allowing for 10 degrees of tilt. But I hardly ever waste time tilting with subjects as close as your fly. For me it is mainly a way of having two lenses in one (regular 100mm Tilt plus a regular Macro). In addition, it has the abilty to shift or to be used with digital medium-format. The APO-Rodagon I will only take along when I know I will have plain+little subjects to photograph that need perfection. I will always use it at f11 to 16 then, after that, diffraction becomes too visible. As far as flies' heads are concerned, fumbling with tilting will only wear down the animal's tolerance.

Why would you post a long, drawn out response, yet refuse to provide any evidence? It's certainly not for time's sake, because you rambled on and on.

As jrista stated, and as is painfully obvious to someone with common sense, having tilt would be massively beneficial. It would not be a panacea to the DOF problem in macro, but it would be a step in that direction, and having some ability to alter the plane of focus is better than having no ability.

Right now your argument sounds akin to those who deride ISO 409200 being in cameras, when it is always better to have the option to even take a photograph than to not take one.

 

[Rudeofus]

If you look at the Scheimpflug principle, you see that the distance ratio lens to sensor/film plane vs. lens to subject plane is an important factor how much tilting you actually need. If the lens is much closer to your sensor/film than to the subject, a few degrees tilt may put some planar subject matter into focus that is 45 or more degrees off. Typical examples are landscape images which are tack sharp from front to back: although the surface is 90° off the sensor/film plane, relatively small lens movements are all that is needed.

In the case of macro, your lens may be closer to your sensor/film plane than to your subject, and you need much more tilt capability to put some subject into focus that is not parallel to your sensor/film plane. 8° tilt, as afforded by current Canon T&S line up may compensate for not much over 20° subject plane tilt, and that is not all that much. jrista provided an example where 8° tilt may or may not have helped, whereas fussi III seems to speak from experience where 20° tilt was too little to be helpful.

Ask yourself, how many times your subject plane is less than 15° off your sensor/film plane, and whether that kind of subject matter would allow you to play with lens movements.

 

[zagga]

First of all: Let me thank you for mentioning the back of the head is not in need of being in focus.

I was referring to the visible part of the front and back respectively, speaking anatomically.

With my refusal I only meant to say I am not inclined to run yet another test series of tilted macros just so to be able to post the outcome and win anyone's "award". I did my testing, I am good. I never did feel any need to proove my point to you. But I thought you might be smart enough to tell between the lines, that there is a likelihood my experience to be better funded than your assumptions.

Your theorie is right, but the effect and possible benefit of tilting is so little at this distance (and with a three dimensional subject), that it approaches negligible.

Yes, you will be able to make the focal plain say more level with the right eye-portion of the fly (minimally, 4 degrees of tilt might be right for that). But the DOF will remain to be so shallow that you will find yourself stopping down to an f-stop where you will hardly see any difference to the untilted version. And you will still have difraction. After all, this head isn't much less three-dimensional than a ball. Where do you want to slice it?

I recommend: Learn by doing if you have to. I promise you will not be tilting in practice with that kind of shot unless you feel the desire to proove yourself pixelpeepingly right and win an award for fiercest and lenghty contributions yourself. Noone benefitting from that.

I wasn't saying that making a macro TS-E is useless. I'd probably buy it if it is near as sharp at infinity. And I will also like its versatility. I will not use it for extreme close-ups of insects though.

+1

For me a macro TS-E would be of most use as it would be tuned for close focusing rather than infinity which normally means better/less less aberrations at closer distances and a large image circle when focused closer rather than normal lenses that are largest at infinity. As a macro lens I believe from all my experience with the 90mm TS-E and extension tubes that the movements would be of little use but as a table top product shots lens I'd buy it straight away.

 

[jrista]

Your up-front refusal to provide any evidence to back up your claims only gives me immediate cause to doubt you. So sorry, but I cannot trust your evaluation. There is no reason to trust your evaluation. You can't simply say "I'm 'through' with backing up my assertions with evidence." and expect that to win you any awards.
...
The back side of the head is immaterial, you can't see it anyway

First of all: Let me thank you for mentioning the back of the head is not in need of being in focus.

I was referring to the visible part of the front and back respectively, speaking anatomically.

With my refusal I only meant to say I am not inclined to run yet another test series of tilted macros just so to be able to post the outcome and win anyone's "award". I did my testing, I am good. I never did feel any need to proove my point to you. But I thought you might be smart enough to tell between the lines, that there is a likelihood my experience to be better funded than your assumptions.

Let me be clearer then. What experience? What better funding? You've provided zero evidence to support your claims that you have more experience or have better funded your equipment. By refusing to supply any evidence of any kind, because you feel no need to prove your point, makes me question your points all the more. You have given no one here ANY reason to trust that you have more experience of have higher quality, more expensive equipment that would allow you to prove the point anyway.

Perhaps you do have more experience, perhaps your a TS lens collector and you've spent tens of thousands of dollars buying all of the ones available on the market. Why should I believe that? It's just your naked word, a word you've already stated you have no intention of backing up with any evidence. An up-front insistence that you aren't interested in proving your points, when proving your point with actual evidence would easily give me cause to reevaluate my own, eliminates any reason for me, or for that matter anyone else, to trust anything you say.

Just to be clear about WHY I don't trust your word. If you hadn't preemptively stated you refuse to provide any evidence of any kind to back up your claims (which still fundamentally miss the point I'm trying to make), I wouldn't be so insistent about my reasons for not trusting you...I wouldn't have a clearly and well defined reason NOT to trust you, and quite possibly the opposite. Only those who are afraid their own assertions may not be valid are willing to state ahead of time that evidence doesn't matter.

Your theorie is right, but the effect and possible benefit of tilting is so little at this distance (and with a three dimensional subject), that it approaches negligible.

Based on what theory? Your own personal anecdotal "experience"? Or can you lay down the math for me, and for everyone else, to prove the point? How negligible? Were talking about a few millimeters of DOF here...a few degrees of tilt could have a significant impact on how that few millimeters envelops your subject. It doesn't have to be significant, because were talking about insignificant distances and sizes in the first place.

Yes, you will be able to make the focal plain say more level with the right eye-portion of the fly (minimally, 4 degrees of tilt might be right for that). But the DOF will remain to be so shallow that you will find yourself stopping down to an f-stop where you will hardly see any difference to the untilted version. And you will still have difraction. After all, this head isn't much less three-dimensional than a ball. Where do you want to slice it?

I don't need to make the DOF deeper. I just need to change the relationship of DOF to my subject. A few degrees of tilt WILL do that. I think everyone is thinking I just want to create a giant wedge like you do with landscape photography, to make everything from the foreground to infinity "in focus". That's NOT what I am talking about. The DOF doesn't need to be "infinitely" thick. It just needs to be reoriented to conform to the orientation of the subject, that's it. As for where to slice...well, perhaps a picture:

Details in the image. Everything is to scale. I calculated G based on f (Scheimpflug Principal), which is assumed to be 100mm. Tilt angle of the lens is 8°. All other terms were derived from G and f, and everything is to scale assuming 1 pixel represents two millimeters. Subject distance is 10" (254mm). For a 20mm ball (i.e. fly head), the effective gain in focus on the top of the ball is about 6mm farther back. You also lose about the same 6mm forward on the bottom of the ball. The loss of focus on the bottom of the ball/fly head doesn't matter, because it cannot be seen (it's underneath, given the position of the sensor/vantage point of the viewer.)

So, 6mm. That isn't much. It's quite trivial. Unless your subject is a freakin fly! Now, if I had a full 20° of tilt in the lens, instead of just a mere 8°, the actual change in the plane of focus on the subject would be even more significant, despite still being in terms of mere millimeters.

 

[privatebydesign]

That calculation is for a simple lens, any 135 format macro T/S is not going to be a simple lens, just look at the reverse tilt needed when using the current T/S's to see that. It also assumes infinity focus, mainly because Scheimpflug was primarily interested in battlefields from a balloon, about as removed from a fly's head as you could get, read the booklet I linked to earlier for the more complicated equations on focusing a view camera for an accurate estimation that takes lens focus distance into account.

Personally, the way I read the thread, every person who has or claims to own a T/S lens has said the same thing, tilt/swing is not a particularly useful feature to have in a dedicated macro lens other than for some product photography; on the other hand, those who are counting on theories and personal feelings think it will.

 

[privatebydesign]

I think everyone is thinking I just want to create a giant wedge like you do with landscape photography, to make everything from the foreground to infinity "in focus". That's NOT what I am talking about. The DOF doesn't need to be "infinitely" thick.

That so isn't how tilt works, but, whatever.

 

[jrista]

I think everyone is thinking I just want to create a giant wedge like you do with landscape photography, to make everything from the foreground to infinity "in focus". That's NOT what I am talking about. The DOF doesn't need to be "infinitely" thick.

That so isn't how tilt works, but, whatever.

First, there is a reason I put the term "infinitely" in quotes. When you tilt a TS lens down, you make the focal plane angle from below the lens outwards and away. The depth of field is narrower at the point where the focal plane meets the lens and image planes, and becomes increasingly wide the farther out you go. It isn't infinite (unless you follow the focal plane for infinity), but it DOES allow you to reduce your aperture and still keep your entire field in acceptably sharp focus. Indeed, you will generally be doing landscape photography like this at hyperfocal distance. But it is how tilt works.

From Wikipedia:

The DoF is zero at the apex, remains shallow at the edge of the lens’s field of view, and increases with distance from the camera.

As for all the rest, I know you love to ignore theory as if it has absolutely no bearing on anything in reality. That's your choice.

Still, I don't need to increase my DOF like tilt does for distant landscapes. All I need to do is tilt the focal plane around close up subjects so that the focal plane and DOF are better oriented relative to the subject. The change in focus doesn't need to be significant, a fraction of a millimeter change in the focal plane around a close up macro subject would produce a visible change in focus. Even if I can't get a full 20° of tilt at the focal plane out of a complex multi-element TS lens, it's still an improvement over not having tilt at all. Mere millimeters change in the focal plane are all that matter for macro.

Oh, and BTW, given that a specially built tilt/shift macro lens has not actually ever been built for 35mm format, NO ONE here actually has any first-hand experience with it. The theory is the only thing we have.

 

[jrista]

Here are some actual T/S products for specifically marketed for macro photographers:

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/tilt-shift-bellows/
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CONTAX-C-Y-MICRO-MACRO-BELLOWS-EXTENSION-TILT-SHIFT-/380895790528?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58af2885c0
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/eos_macro_tilt_adapter.html

If T/S was so useless for macro, and is incapable of producing any kind of visible improvement in actual use, why would anyone invest money designing and developing T/S bellows or adapters?

LensBaby also offers a macro adapter for all their optics, and it works with all of their T/S optics:

http://store.lensbaby.com/products/macro-converters/

This is actually probably one of the most viable T/S macro products for Canon cameras on the market right now. I forgot all about LensBaby, but this stuff isn't even new. I was looking at their Composer Pro and macro converter years ago when I still had my 450D. If Canon doesn't make a T/S Macro, I'll probably put the LensBaby stuff back on my list.

 

[jrista]

I don't need to make the DOF deeper. I just need to change the relationship of DOF to my subject.

Initially you stated you were sure that you could get the whole head into focus by tilting. I felt free to assure you that was a wrong assumption, based on my experience. What was wrong with that?

Now you are practically stating DOF is not relevant for the purpose of getting the whole head into focus. But how can it not be with a threedimensional subject? So you were talking about a piece of confetti all along? Well, granted, TS-Macro helps with confetti.

I still do not think that a forum like this is about prooving each other right or wrong by going to the book-shelf. It can also be about listening to what other people have to say. Not everybody is raising their words only to be in the center of attention. Some want to keep others from going wrong when they see it coming.

You are only discouraging people with aquired knowledge to participate here. But your muzzles are inflated and full of air.

I will never understand why anyone has to get directly personal over these topics. I have not insulted you in any way, nor am I simply interested in "being right".

You demanded I simply trust your words at face value, and preemptively flat-out stated that you were not going to back up any of your claims (which for me, personally, comes off as one of two ways...either extremely arrogant and haughty, or as an indication that the other party doesn't necessarily trust their own position), claims which were supposedly steeped in a vastly superior base of experience (how you could know that, given that you don't know anything about me, given this is the first time we've ever encountered each other, is curious.) I explained, perhaps directly but otherwise without insult, why I could not simply take you at your word like that. Simply an honest but plain and direct explanation of my stance. Your getting a whole lot more personal and insulting here, and THAT is the only thing on these forums that TRULY does no one any good. We've had far too many threads destroyed by people like you getting personal like this. I don't really care what you think of me, but there are other people on these forums who don't like threads going way off the tracks by people flinging insults back and forth.

I'm not going to exchange insults with you.

Here is another image. Maybe this will replace a thousand words and all my "hot air":

Crappy, crude, but hopefully effective example of focal plane, DOF, and a "fly head". Maybe DOF increases, slightly, as there would be a very slight wedge. But that isn't really what I'm after. I lose DOF along the bottom of the fly eye and head, but I gain a small amount at the top of the head. It doesn't have to be a lot. It can be just a couple millimeters...that's all I'd need to push the focus falloff far enough to the back of the fly's head to matter. Add in some rotation (or swing), and I could reorient the focal plane and wedge to bring more of the fly eye in focus. Since the fly's head is round, I can afford to lose some DOF at the back right area where the head turns into the mandible (it's just empty air there).

How much actual lens tilt would be necessary to get this much focal plane tilt for a subject less than a foot from my sensor? I dunno. I haven't actually engineered such a lens myself. I've found a number of T/S Macro Bellows now that claim to have 15° of tilt. Some of these products are fairly pricey, $200-300 (just for a bellows, we aren't talking about any amount of optics here), so I am at least willing to suspect that 15° of tilt is enough to be useful for subjects very close to the lens, given these things are marketed explicitly as "macro tilt and shift bellows."

Anyway, I have no interest in proving right or wrong with you. Just being clear about what I'm trying to say. I haven't felt anyone has even understood what I'm trying to say, all I've gotten is direct counterarguments based on mistaken assumptions based on what you guys think I'm saying.

I disagree with you. You clearly disagree with me. We can exist happily in a state of disagreement without insulting each other, or demanding that either of us trust each other just on our word alone. For anonymous people on the internet, someone's word is worthless. However, at least I've tried to back up my claims with some evidence. At least I've tried to make my original point, what my ultimate goals would be if I had a specially designed TS Macro lens from Canon, clear. I believe T/S movements are beneficial for non-flat, non-product macro photography, such as insects. I don't expect to see some ridiculous improvement that would allow me to shoot at f/2.8, but maybe I can drop down to f/11 or f/16 from f/32 or f/45, and use tilt and maybe some shift to make better use of my focal plane, and envelop more of the interesting part of my subject within the DoF. I mean, that's what T/S is all about...changing your focal plane, which in turn changes what part of your subject falls within the depth of field, without moving the sensor.

I know that on my 7D, I can get pretty sharp results up to f/20 despite the fact that is a diffraction-limited aperture. Beyond f/20, the effects of diffraction (even in macro situations), really start to kick in and hurt my detail. By f/32, things are usually unacceptably soft. And, just to finish off the point. So what if I still have to shoot at f/22, even with tilt and shift? I've shot other macro subjects as narrow as f/22 before, and there is still usually a considerable amount of focus falloff. Even a small amount of tilt would be enough to MAXIMIZE the amount of my subject that is near the focal plane and within the DoF. Maximize doesn't necessarily mean entirely eliminating all focus falloff everywhere....it just means moving those points of falloff around such that more of your subject is sharp for the SAME or SIMILAR DOF. DOF doesn't have to get huge, or even larger...changing the angle of the focal plane is really all that I'd really need.