New Canon Tilt-Shift lenses in the wild [CR2]

[JWest]

LOL that's kind of funny. You seem to miss the point that using the current 17 tse lens on canon RF is finally a good work flow due to the annoying front end for any filtering. My work uses a CPL for nearly all the time, indoors and out. Of course a tse 14 will be added to my kit the moment it's available but it will have the same workflow limitations as the 17 did for several years.

The beauty of using the EF tse 24 on the gfx is getting a 20% wider angle of view plus easy filtering and no concerns about a large enough file size. 50Mp was the bare minimum for most of my clients but 75-100 allows for more flexible cropping and end uses. For years I stitched almost every shot before the 5dsr and tse 17 came out and even after those still "added on" some sky to most exteriors or to at least equal a final proportion of 4x5.

I've been solely using "a fair amount of shift" since 1998 in my commercial work. Aside from 4x5, I've used almost all of the available shift lenses for 35mm and 67 including all canon options as they were born.

End results with the EF lenses on the GFX 100s are far superior to using them on any current canon body and I have used both the 5dsr, since it was the new thing, as well as the R5.

There is so little "strong mechanical vignetting" on the GFX sensor size using the 17, 24, 50 that it's almost a total non-issue.

 

[SwissFrank]

Would be interesting to find out if 14mm requires special filter mount or they manage to keep standard screw in filter thread on front.

Hmm, the 14-35/4 zoom has a standard mount, but it actually has far less angle of view than the TS lenses. If I recall correctly the EF shift gave 12mm of shift. The diagonal on a 24x36 sensor is 21.6mm, so that goes up to33.6mm. So the resulting total field of view is 14mm * 21.6/33.6= 9mm. That is REALLY wide.

Arguably they could give you filter threads to use with no shift or smaller shift, and let you decide when to use it or not. But I suppose they'll continue to have a slot in the back for gel filters.

 

[neuroanatomist]

LOL that's kind of funny. You seem to miss the point that using the current 17 tse lens on canon RF is finally a good work flow due to the annoying front end for any filtering.

Oh, was that your main point? LOL. You seem to miss the point that I was agreeing with you on that point.

But your post started off with:

DOA: These RF TSE will be \'almost\' entirely useless without a high Mp body…

…which is blatantly asinine.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If I recall correctly the EF shift gave 12mm of shift.

Yes, with a resulting FoV for the fully-shifted TS-E 17 being equivalent to 11mm.

 

[davidcl0nel]

Yes, with a resulting FoV for the fully-shifted TS-E 17 being equivalent to 11mm.

I never had both, but the EF 11-24 looks similar for the first lens(es) element(s). Do you have tried both with an tripod to compare, if it is really the same maximum reach (on 17TSE you have to shift in all directions of course).


On a wide angle TSE I personally don't need a autofocus, and I will not switch from my current 17mm....
But for the longer focal ranges like the 135 TSE f/4 they might be good for portrait. I didn't write it the first time, so again: Imagine it with autofocus (and eye autofocus of course), so that the first eye is sharp... and now you can slightly tilt the lens until you get a second eye marking, because of the tilted plane now brings both eyes in focus?
Or with better markings for tilting in macro usage. Now the complete picture is known to the processor (better than with autofocus on a DSLR, which doesn't know much) there could be better helper in a liveview for accurate focus (range).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I never had both, but the EF 11-24 looks similar for the first lens(es) element(s). Do you have tried both with a tripod to compare, if it is really the same maximum reach (on 17TSE you have to shift in all directions of course).

Yes, it really is… and because of the shift mechanism, you get a perfectly aligned set of shots. However, you lose the benefit of shift to correct converging lines.

 

[JWest]

Oh, was that your main point? LOL. You seem to miss the point that I was agreeing with you on that point.

But your post started off with:

…which is blatantly asinine.

When someone says how a thing is important or not in their workflow, there is really no sense in arguing that it isn't valid, to you. Apparently, you will find it very useful and wonderful. That's great. I'm not going to try to invalidate what gear is good for you.

For my work though, new TSE lenses will simply add nothing to my workflow before a higher Mp body is available to use them on.

Your unsolicited attempts at personal attacks only diminish anything you might have to offer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

DOA. If Canon releases a high MP camera, it will be almost entirely useless.

 

[JWest]

DOA. If Canon releases a high MP camera, it will be almost entirely useless.

A. That's not what I said at all. I wrote "DOA: These RF TSE will be \'almost\' entirely useless (for me obviously) without a high Mp body"

B. Pretty much everything people say on a forum about their opinion on gear is related to their own use or purpose. It's fairly obvious that any opinion on gear may not apply to anyone else LOL

C. If what you just wrote is just your opinion on that and not a mixed up "quote", then you're entitled to that. I would even agree that high Mp body will be truly useful to a limited user group.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A. That's not what I said at all. I wrote "DOA: These RF TSE will be \'almost\' entirely useless (for me obviously) without a high Mp body"

Oh, for you. Seems you left that part out.

B. Pretty much everything people say on a forum about their opinion on gear is related to their own use or purpose. It's fairly obvious that any opinion on gear may not apply to anyone else LOL

Many people here (and all over the internet) make broad generalizations and purport their opinions as facts.

You weren’t doing that? Fine. Apologies.

 

[Aaron D]

Apparently, you also don't need to escape single quotes.

Ha - yeah, maybe that's a Mac thing?

 

[Aaron D]

I don't know about what kind of things you shoot but for most homes' bedrooms and baths I am shooting at 11mm. You don't get much manuverable space when a queen bed is fitted in a 10x10 room.

If you want no AF and shift only go look at Laowa's 15mm f4.5. Cheaper and pragmatic, no screw in filter though.

I'm not OPPOSED to AF or tilt..... Not anti-AF, anti-tilt.

 

[Aaron D]

Agreed, I can certainly live without AF in a TS lens.


Depends on what/where you shoot. For exterior architecture in the US, I typically use the TS-E 24L II. But in Europe, there are many lovely buildings with very little space around them where I'd like wider than my TS-E 17L and I end up using the 11-24/4L without the benefit of shift.

I'd be tempted by a 14m TS lens for RF mount, but I'd also keep the TS-E 17 (and 24).

I've wondered about using a 11-24 instead of a T+S lens, leveling the thing and then cropping out what I don't need. Then I'd have a more utilitarian lens than the 17. BUT I've got the 17, not the 11-24......

 

[Aaron D]

I wish I could, I’m actually leaning the other way if we don’t get these announcements soon. I love my R5, I can’t wait to see what the firmware update will do. I added it to my collection for hybrid video use, but I must say I am somewhat disappointed with a few pet peeves that I find I end up grabbing the Sony more so because of convenience.

I won’t replace my 14 1.8 with an EF 14 2.8. I like the bright aperture. Especially at dusk and low light.
I won’t replace my 24 1.4 with an EF 24 1.4 II, the IQ is a night and day difference.
I won’t replace my 35 1.4 with an EF 35 1.4 II because I cannot use focus breathing comp. Even if I purchased an R6ii for the breathing comp, still can’t use the lens…
I’m not wasting money on an interim solution of an old lens just to wait for the one I want to buy.
Especially when I have the luxury of not being in dire need of it since I have a suitable replacement.
I’ve been trying to primarily use Canon, I love it for photo. Video is lacking some stuff but there are work arounds (other than the inconvenience of having to work around some small issues), and I’m really trying to justify making the 100% commitment of selling all my Sony gear to stick primarily with canon.
But until I get the suitable replacements to make that commitment, it’s a little hard when you have so much money invested in both systems.

Yeah Canon has some holes to fill. I'd love to see a collection of L type f/1.4 lenses, including a 28......

 

[neuroanatomist]

Arguably they could give you filter threads to use with no shift or smaller shift, and let you decide when to use it or not. But I suppose they'll continue to have a slot in the back for gel filters.

They could only do that if the lens lacks a bulbous front element, which a 14mm TS lens would almost certainly have.

If you mean ‘continue to have a gel filter slot’ in reference to the current TS-E lenses, they don’t. Obviously all except the 17mm take threaded front filters. You can see the slot on the 11-24 (top), and the wide open backs of the TS-E 17 (left) and 24 II (right).



I’ve occasionally used a 10-stop gel with my 11-24, which is at least not terribly onerous with exposure simulation. But the drop-in adapter is far, far better.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've wondered about using a 11-24 instead of a T+S lens, leveling the thing and then cropping out what I don't need. Then I'd have a more utilitarian lens than the 17. BUT I've got the 17, not the 11-24......

Certainly feasible, especially with an R5. At least as far as shift goes. Of course, the 11-24 is bigger, heavier and more expensive. But as you say, more versatile.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ha - yeah, maybe that's a Mac thing?

Not for me…

 

[David - Sydney]

But for the longer focal ranges like the 135 TSE f/4 they might be good for portrait. I didn't write it the first time, so again: Imagine it with autofocus (and eye autofocus of course), so that the first eye is sharp... and now you can slightly tilt the lens until you get a second eye marking, because of the tilted plane now brings both eyes in focus?

f4 will have a deeper depth of field than say the 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 but for portraiture photography, will you have enough time to adjust tilt for face angle before the model moves?

 

[JWest]

I've wondered about using a 11-24 instead of a T+S lens, leveling the thing and then cropping out what I don't need. Then I'd have a more utilitarian lens than the 17. BUT I've got the 17, not the 11-24......

If your workflow allows the time, the tse 17, shift-stitched, is superior in my experience. However, this approach is cumbersome at best when combining shots where people are moving about or the light is changing.

One must also remember that a minimum of 3 zones are required for the full width shift-stitch approach.

Additionally, this is asking for plenty of annoyance if shifting the lens instead of shifting the body.

Lastly, I used your idea 'wide lens, level, crop as needed for final composition' for several years before the tse 17 existed. The canon 11-24 didn't exist either so it was the Sigma 12-24 did that job when I needed to work quickly and didn't have time to shift-stitch the 24 tse.

I did use it as a full frame image as well sometimes which would usually be something like a stairwell or atrium type of space with people moving through. I literally never used it for any focal length other than widest though.

 

[mxwphoto]

I've wondered about using a 11-24 instead of a T+S lens, leveling the thing and then cropping out what I don't need. Then I'd have a more utilitarian lens than the 17. BUT I've got the 17, not the 11-24......

Cropping on the 11-24 to correct for perspective correction on tall buildings works well if you do not require high resolution, though I would recommend doing that with a R5 than my R6. You end up tossing around 50% or more of the pixels in an image. I end up with around an 8mpx image but on a R5 that translates to around 18mpx, which is a lot more feasible.