New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]

[privatebydesign]

Everybody knows what you are trying to say, everybody with experience is saying it doesn't work as well as you think.

Despite you saying I ignore the theory, you are the one that is, you cannot ignore the fact that your calculations are for a simple lens, and any macro t/s is not going to be a simple lens, but more importantly, you are ignoring a gigantic variable, focus distance, your calculations only work for a simple lens with focus at infinity, not the normal focus distance for macro shooting. Your calculations are off by several orders of magnitude.

 

[jrista]

Here is an actual example of tilt at macro distances and scales:

Your getting a whole lot more personal and insulting here.

Perhaps. Ignorance paired with loudness makes me aggressive at times.

Further, I am decidedly not an anonymous computer and prefer not to be treated as such. I took you by your words and they demanded retribution with regards to contents AND demeanor.

I agree we disagree. But only I am in the comfortable position to know what I know in the aristotelian manner of the craftsman (techne). You instead can only hope you might be right but wish to proof that in a lenghty scientific manner.

I never said you were an anonymous computer. You are, however, an anonymous person. I have no reason to believe you are as intelligent as your incredible arrogance might otherwise make you seem, therefor I have no reason to take you at your word that your supposed experience give you some insight that cannot be demonstrated in a "lengthy scientific manner."

Angry, arrogant, and insulting words have no meaning in the original context of this thread. Which means we have another derailed thread. Guess that isn't surprising, seems to be the M.O. around CR these days...

 

[fussy III]

I have no reason to believe you are as intelligent as your incredible arrogance might otherwise make you seem.

Well, be assured I try to use my brain at all times.

 

[jrista]

Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/bellows-attachment-castbal-ts/

This is even better than the LensBaby gizmos if you really want a highly flexible macro system. For anyone who is actually interested in a flexible macro setup, you can buy all the parts on B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=novoflex+castbal&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Pricey at $1904 for the bellows/focuser, lens, and adapter, but probably still less costly than any potential new Canon TS Macro lens that might be announced this year.

 

[fussy III]

Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.

The fact that this exists does not proove it will work for your purposes around 1:1. It might not even live up to the purposes by which the device is marketed. Just be aware of that possibility. This set-up is certainly useful for product-photography but also more clumsy than many others on the market with regards to plain tilt-movements.

 

[jrista]

Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.

The fact that this exists does not proove it will work for your purposes around 1:1. It might not even live up to the purposes by which the device is marketed. Just be aware of that possibility. This set-up is certainly useful for product-photography but also more clumsy than many others on the market with regards to plain tilt-movements.

Perhaps, however I haven't seen any other system that allows 25° of tilt freedom either. I've seen some that go up to 15°, but they also had a similar focusing/tilt rail setup.

Also, I think this system would still be considerably easier to use than my 100mm macro lens on a ball head. Trying to focus and compose that way is a major PITA, especially if your subject tends to be on the move. A bellows on a shiftable focus rail is a lot easier to work with for composition and focusing. For macro photography of other natural, but otherwise immobile subjects (like flora), a setup like this would be ideal, allowing not only for improvements in the utilization of the focal plane, but also creative focus uses that have nothing to do with maximizing focus or dof.

 

[fussy III]

Therefor I have no reason to take you at your word that your supposed experience give you some insight that cannot be demonstrated in a "lengthy scientific manner."

Oh, I am positive that it CAN be demonstrated in a scientific manner. Otherwise I couldn't trust my knowledge. I was hoping I could leave the scientific demonstration to you.

I do not mean to be arrogant now, I just find the following sentence very fitting for our dispute: "There is an intimate positive relationship between epistêmê and technê, as well as a fundamental contrast." (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/)

Regards

 

[fussy III]

For macro photography of other natural, but otherwise immobile subjects (like flora), a setup like this would be ideal, allowing not only for improvements in the utilization of the focal plane, but also creative focus uses that have nothing to do with maximizing focus or dof.

Here I would have too stress again that you are very likely overestimating the practical benefits. I think I understand what you are looking for, because I was looking for the same. And I did not find it because it doesn't work that way at this magnification. It will work for a daisy's blossom to some degree, but not for the three dimensional blossom of an Orchid, especially not for that of a smaller species.

Even selective focus is achieved more straightforward just moving round forth and back than by tilting. It will work for a big orchid's blossom or a daisy though, but artistically, it will mostly just feel like playing around rather than creating anything of special beauty or meaning. That is my subjective feeling of course. However, it is a feeling that came about in real life, so it is related to techne again while this time round, I believe there is no scientifical way of proving my feeling is "true". It is certainly what I would call a true feeling though.

 

[jrista]

I do not disagree, there is indeed value in both experience and theory. I'm not trying to dismiss experience, honestly. However I do believe that if tilt is of no value at macro scale, it should be easy to prove, especially for someone who has ready access to a wide variety of tilt/shift lenses with a range of capabilities and designs. I'm also not above admitting I could be 100% wrong here, but I honestly do not believe I am.

PrivateByDesign and I have a long history. He has his way, and he thinks it is 100% purely objective, and in many cases he very much is, however there have been cases where I believe he is blind to his bias, and his bias is very persistent. Hence my reason to doubt him until I get some kind of concrete proof. You came on pretty strong, immediately claiming a superior position then also immediately and subsequently trouncing any possibility that you would provide any evidence to back up your position. I'm happy that your happy and confident in your position...but that doesn't change anything.

You have still made claims I have no reason to believe just on your word alone, or even the combined word of you and private, and given that there is apparently quite a number of T/S bellows systems explicitly designed for macro photography, some with magnifications up to 2:1 and tilts from 10° to 25°, that only gives me further cause to doubt your strong assertions, based on your own personal experience, that tilt is of no practical value for macro photography. Experience is well and good, but how different, really, is photographing a carpet of moss with a tiny mushroom in the middle different from photographing a ring on a slate in a whitebox? I don't see any fundamental difference in the subject distances, angles, or viability of T/S between these two things. In the case of the fly, it's head as a whole is indeed a largely round object like a ball...but from the standpoint of what's visible within the field of view and what really needs to be in focus, the top of the eye and front part of the fly's head that is within view ALSO make for a relatively flat subject at a slight incline, which is again not all that different from a carpet of moss with a mushroom in the middle or a ring on a slate in a product photography box.

If T/S can be useful for product photography at macro distances, it can be useful for nature photography at the same distances. Insects, being ever-mobile subjects, are certainly rather arbitrary subjects...your not always going to have them cooperating and giving you the opportunity to get a good composition with a good angle on the interesting parts to fully maximize the potential of a flexible T/S macro system. But the same core argument could be made about insect macro in general...that you can't really get the most out of macro photography with insects, for the very same reasons. And yet...thousands of photographers have found a way, not only to make their subjects cooperate, but even photograph them, sometimes hand-held, at magnifications up to 5:1, even in natural lighting.

So, epistêmê or technê, theory and/or experience... I'm not speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint myself. While I have not actually used a macro t/s bellows before (hopefully something that I'll rectify before too long, I actually really want to get some actual evidence that demonstrates what, if any, and how much of a difference tilt could actually affect focus at macro scale now...I'm about ready to DIY myself a little bellows system and use my 50mm and 100mm lenses to test the theory out in the short term), I am not without experience with macro or T/S photography. The assertion that I am simply an ignorant, hopeful idiot doomed to be disappointed, well, it's certainly your right to have an opinion, but it also certainly doesn't give me any reason to trust what you say at face value any more than I had reason to before.

Well, good night.

 

[fussy III]

based on your own personal experience, that tilt is of no practical value for macro photography.

Never went that far.

Just as example: You have a solid black marble of 12mm diameter full frame at f2.8 (2:1). Non tilted, its outline is sharp. As soon as you tilt, you can stop down as much as you want, you will not get the whole outline/conture into focus any longer. In addition, as was mentioned before by others, at a close range the angle of the focal plain does not change as much when tilting. So even if you cut the marble in half, you (the sensor) would still need to nearly face the surface of the cutting plain at maybe 30 degrees when tilting 20 degrees in order to get the plain into focus throughout ( I do not have any charts for that and may be off).

I just remembered that most of my examples have crashed and disappeared. Otherwise I could have sent you at least pictures of a key at appr. 1:1 and 2:1 that show how little change of perspective 12 degrees of tilt allow for when the task is to keep the entire surface of the key in focus.

I owe you examples now somehow, is can see that. But please understand that I will only post something once I find a subject worthwhile to photograph. I simply have spend too much time testing, buying and reselling lenses. I do not like it anymore.

Please do not invest too much money and be disappointed like I was. You might want to try the 8degrees that an EF to EF-Adapter allows for (ebay). Mine didn't last long and had a very stiff lens-mount. But you can check for the effect that way without investing to much.

What I came to use most beside the Pentax 67 100 Macro and a Tilt-adapter from Zörk is the Pentax 645 75mm with the life-size-converter that belongs to the 67-Macro. That way I can use the Mirex-Adapter Pentax 645 to EF with tripod food. It is more precise and sturdy than the Zörk- Adapter and I can change 645-lenses without taking the foot from the tripod or having to rearrange tilt-angle. And the 75mm is really light-weight and sharp.

Otherwise: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/step-into-the-world-of-miniature-with-david-clapp-11285
But I do not quite share the enthusiasm. Diffraction is high at f22. And there are all those close-range limitations mentioned before. And mostly, you will have vignetting when attempting maximum tilt on FF.

 

[100]

To get an idea of the possibilities with tilt-shift macro on 35mm:
http://www.photodady.com/blog/2012/05/18/tilt-shift-stacked-hdr-macro-photography/

Pennies are flat and don’t move. With living insects the third dimension and the possibility of movement make it a lot harder to get the result you want. My experience with tilt is that it takes a lot of time to get the shot exactly like I want it. Set the angle, focus (manual only), check the focus plane in live view, adjust the angle, check again, etc. Sometimes I need to do that 3 or 4 times to get it right and that’s with non-macro static subjects on the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

About the fly shot
I see about 1/3 of the fly filling 80% of the height of the picture.
If shot at 1:1 on a 7D (22.3 x 14.9 mm sensor) that would make the fly 35mm or so. That’s either an enormous fly, or this is a substantially cropped image.
What is the real diameter of the flies eye?

What the DOF is depends on how you calculate it and the values you use.
The 100L at its minimum focus distance of 30cm is no longer a 100mm lens but about a 75mm lens
It’s shot at f/5.6, but at the minimum focus distance the effective f-stop (that’s what determines the DOF) is no longer f/5.6 but about f/11.
If I use DOFMaster http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to calculate the DOF (Canon 7D; 75mm; 30cm; f/11) I get a DOF of 0.52cm (5.2mm).
With 100mm; 30cm and f/5.6 I get 0.13cm (1.3mm).

If I use the Macro Depth of Field Calculator at Cambridge in Colour http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm (a great source of information by the way) and put in a magnification of 1; sensor Size 1.6 crop and f/5.6 (f number as seen by the camera) the DOF is 0.45mm. This is millimeters instead of centimeters, so there is a huge difference between these calculations.

With a DOF of 1mm or less you need to be very accurate with the focal plane to get the exact result you aim for. I think a TS-E 1:1 macro will only be useful with static subjects.

 

[jrista]

The fly actually was a rather large one. I took those shots late last year, weather was cold, and it was just before sunset, so the inset was very sluggish. I coaxed it into a stick, and it just hung there. I clamped it into a gorilla holder, stuck it on a tripod, and then started shooting.

Like I mentioned before, if your dedicated, you find a way of getting things to work the way you want them to. Some macro photographers regularly resort to bait, which often gets insects to stop and sit still for a minute. Others resort to setups, where they generally know where the insect will be in a few minutes span of time, so chasing it down isn't nearly as tough a job. The other way is to find insect subjects in the mornings (usually) when it's cold, and they are lethargic. They they can be quite cooperative subjects.

The image is cropped about 50%, so the fly isn't 35mm in size. I'd also say magnification was probably closer to 1:1.1 or so than 1:1...it was shot hand held, after all, which makes it extremely difficult to nail focus right exactly at 1:1. The largest subject size in a 1.6x crop at 0.9x mag is ~17mm, so the size of the fly's head is less than that. If I run the numbers through Cambridge in Color's calc, I get a DoF around 0.5mm. Now, CiC assumes a CoC of 0.032mm. Given my crop and the fact that the image I shared here is pretty much exactly a 3x downsample, I've calculated my CoC at 0.02mm, and when I run the math on that, I get a DoF of 1.03mm.

If I run the numbers through DofMaster, I get a DoF of 3.3mm. I figure subject distance was probably about 33cm, 330mm, or around 13 inches.

A DOF of around 1-2mm sounds about right, given what I know about the actual subject size and imaging distance.




Regarding the effectiveness of tilt in macro. I honestly can't say what it would be like with a design like Canon's old TS-E lenses. They are much more complex designs. The Novoflex Bellows T/S design, however, for all intents and purposes, uses a "simple" lens design attached only to the front of the bellows. Focus is achieved by moving the lens on the bellows or the whole bellows assembly forward/backward...there are no additional optical elements behind the Schneider APO Digitar lens. In which case the math works much more like it does on the Wikipedia page for Schiempflug, in which case my original diagram of a 20mm ball would apply much more readily. If I could gain almost 6mm of additional DOF with tilt on a 20mm ball, I figure another half a millimeter shouldn't be out of the question with the Novoflex and a 3-4mm fly head. If I assume an effective aperture of f/21 (i.e. if I had stopped down to f/11 instead of f/5.6), and a CoC of 0.02mm, then the DoF is 2mm (according to 2Nc((m + 1)/m^2))...if tilt gets me even a mere half millimeter of increased focus along the back of the fly's head, then I think I'd have achieved my goal. And at a significantly less diffraction limited aperture than a real f/22.

 

[e17paul]

To get an idea of the possibilities with tilt-shift macro on 35mm:
http://www.photodady.com/blog/2012/05/18/tilt-shift-stacked-hdr-macro-photography/

Pennies are flat and don’t move. With living insects the third dimension and the possibility of movement make it a lot harder to get the result you want. My experience with tilt is that it takes a lot of time to get the shot exactly like I want it. Set the angle, focus (manual only), check the focus plane in live view, adjust the angle, check again, etc. Sometimes I need to do that 3 or 4 times to get it right and that’s with non-macro static subjects on the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

About the fly shot
I see about 1/3 of the fly filling 80% of the height of the picture.
If shot at 1:1 on a 7D (22.3 x 14.9 mm sensor) that would make the fly 35mm or so. That’s either an enormous fly, or this is a substantially cropped image.
What is the real diameter of the flies eye?

What the DOF is depends on how you calculate it and the values you use.
The 100L at its minimum focus distance of 30cm is no longer a 100mm lens but about a 75mm lens
It’s shot at f/5.6, but at the minimum focus distance the effective f-stop (that’s what determines the DOF) is no longer f/5.6 but about f/11.
If I use DOFMaster http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to calculate the DOF (Canon 7D; 75mm; 30cm; f/11) I get a DOF of 0.52cm (5.2mm).
With 100mm; 30cm and f/5.6 I get 0.13cm (1.3mm).

If I use the Macro Depth of Field Calculator at Cambridge in Colour http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm (a great source of information by the way) and put in a magnification of 1; sensor Size 1.6 crop and f/5.6 (f number as seen by the camera) the DOF is 0.45mm. This is millimeters instead of centimeters, so there is a huge difference between these calculations.

With a DOF of 1mm or less you need to be very accurate with the focal plane to get the exact result you aim for. I think a TS-E 1:1 macro will only be useful with static subjects.

Reading this and other posts makes me think that a depth of field scale would be every bit as useful as tilt/shift. The scale on my 50 macro is great, surely it would be more so on the 100L?

I am aware that focus ring travel may need to be greater to make a scale truly useful.