TommyLee said:
The 'Macro' listed is a TS-E, so it won't have IS, it won't have AF either. So apart from those two 'needs' of yours it looks to be the perfect lens for you :
Upvote
0
New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The 'Macro' listed is a TS-E, so it won't have IS, it won't have AF either. So apart from those two 'needs' of yours it looks to be the perfect lens for you :
privatebydesign said:TommyLee said:
The 'Macro' listed is a TS-E, so it won't have IS, it won't have AF either. So apart from those two 'needs' of yours it looks to be the perfect lens for you :
ok..I see I 'read' 135 ONLY ..
that's me projecting ..I guess.. on what I wanted fron Can the longer macro with I.S. ...
I do know they have patents etc.. but ..I missed the TS part..
///
of course the TS-e 135 would be useful to many (no I.S./no auto) ..
but I want to chase bugs... different need there..
....thanks..... for FINALLY getting me to re read the post..
I saw what 'I wanted to see' .... haha...
later
Upvote
0
"I don't get a 135 at all. At all. 100 or 120"
135mm is no good but 120 mm, a mere 15 mm difference is?
Clearly Canon are making the 135mm to be clearly differentiated from the 90mm. A rather interesting idea. I would have thought a 35mm TSE would be more popular, but time will tell
135mm is no good but 120 mm, a mere 15 mm difference is?
Clearly Canon are making the 135mm to be clearly differentiated from the 90mm. A rather interesting idea. I would have thought a 35mm TSE would be more popular, but time will tell
Upvote
0
135mm and the tilt tables
Just put 135mm into my tilt table spreadsheet and I do wonder if it means a new movements mechanism?
For those not familiar with the info see details at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/using-lens-tilt-on-your-digital-slr/
although for macro I'd be more likely to use an iterative technique for focus like at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/alternative-focus-technique-for-tilted-lens/
Using the 90 for macro work I often wish for more than 8 degrees tilt - moving this to 135mm make me very curious as to the mechanics
Just put 135mm into my tilt table spreadsheet and I do wonder if it means a new movements mechanism?
For those not familiar with the info see details at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/using-lens-tilt-on-your-digital-slr/
although for macro I'd be more likely to use an iterative technique for focus like at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/alternative-focus-technique-for-tilted-lens/
Using the 90 for macro work I often wish for more than 8 degrees tilt - moving this to 135mm make me very curious as to the mechanics
Attachments
Upvote
0
Re: 135mm and the tilt tables
Ditto, I've been pointing out for years here that deep mirror boxes don't play well with large tilt angles, compound that with macro distance J point distances and, well, let's wait and see......
keithcooper said:
Ditto, I've been pointing out for years here that deep mirror boxes don't play well with large tilt angles, compound that with macro distance J point distances and, well, let's wait and see......
Upvote
0
RGF said:
Yes, annoyingly so am I!
I do have a use for the first three, though if the 90 has a long mfd and the 135 is interesting enough I could see me getting that instead. I do some repetitive product work the size of a coffee mug and have held off getting a TS-E 90 so far and used the 100 L macro, if a TS-E 135 macro could replace both then it might make sense. I use the 100 L for headshots too and was thinking the 85 f1.4 would be nicer for that.
I can't wait for the 5DS/R MkII and four way shift stitched panos from the TS-E45, one thing I will say for Canon, they are one of the most innovative camera companies out there!
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Yes the 45mm looks very tempting for that ! The 24 mm is just too wide for me generally, and even 35 is often too wide for my style of panoramic. Also you get so much in genuine focus with a normal 24, whereas being able to tilt a 45...... hmmmmm.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Or autofocus.
If you do not need tilt or shift -- if you are just buying the T/S lens to use as a really sharp prime, I'd buy the Sigma every time because good-but-not-great AF tends to mop the floor with lenses that have no AF, and the likelihood anything demonstrably outresolves that Sigma 135 Art for a similar price are effectively zero.
- A
Upvote
0
To all that say a TS-E macro doesn't make sense as a handheld lens, remember the MP-E 65mm? A totally manual lens aside from aperture control? I, as well as many others, "run and gun" with this lens for great results. Absolutely no reason that you could not do this with a TS-E.
Set the lens how you want, go shoot. I'd set it so that I could use a lower aperture at angle, thereby meaning I'd need less flash. This would also allow you to get a lot more bug in focus than with a standard plane. Just thinking about this gets me giddy.
I'm still begging that the 135mm have MT-24EX support.
Set the lens how you want, go shoot. I'd set it so that I could use a lower aperture at angle, thereby meaning I'd need less flash. This would also allow you to get a lot more bug in focus than with a standard plane. Just thinking about this gets me giddy.
I'm still begging that the 135mm have MT-24EX support.
Upvote
0
Drainpipe said:
Even if it doesn't accept a the mount ring (with or without a Macrolite adapter), you could always mount the twin heads on a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets (or similar). I use that setup frequently with both the 100L and MP-E 65.
Upvote
0
aceflibble said:
Well, as a professional product (and people and architecture) photographer for about 40 years (and still very busy working), I can tell you that - surprise - a 135mm TS-E lens would probably offer the most "natural" perspective of any other possible focal length.
Most people, because of the rules of thumb about shooting head and shoulder shots of people, mistakenly think that 135mm, for a "full frame" camera, is too long to look natural. Not true for products at all. A great example is the automobile, a product I've shot literally thousands of times for dozens of advertising and corporate clients. Most inexperienced photographers try to shoot cars with a wide angle, or perhaps a"normal" lens, feeling that the exaggerated perspective making the nearest end of the car to the camera appear to "dominate" the image, is attractive. Others try to use very long lenses taken from a very low and just off the dead center axis to create a very sexy in-your-face front or rear "7/8" image.
However, if you were to try make the image look the most natural, a 135mm lens does the best job. At 3/4 angles (the most common product view), you may observe that the apparent size of the front wheels compared to the rears are much closer to, but not exactly the same as, the amount in relation to one another that you would imagine them to be when observing the vehicle with your eyes alone. This is because you really don't see images like a camera does; one doesn't see all of an image at once - instead you "scan" the image in parts and then your brain builds a kind of composite image of the scene. When you see each part of an image separately, your brain naturally then tries to put size difference of disparate parts of an image into a more harmonious relationship in the "composited" image, no matter how the photographic perspective actually might look from your viewing distance to your subject.
If the wheels looked to be the same size, as they would with, let's say a 300mm lens, then it would look interesting but still, subconsciously, look jarringly inaccurate. Charming perhaps, but not "natural." With even a 100mm lens, and especially with wider ones than that, the differences in the apparent size of the front compared to the back wheels would be so great as to look quite odd after first noticing them. The 135 represents the "golden mean."
What this boils down to is that the 135 focal length on a full frame sensor camera does the best job of making different parts of any product of moderate size, in depth and otherwise, look like they "belong together" with their other interconnected parts. As with cars, just about any product bigger than a grapefruit looks more "natural" when shot with a 135mm-150mm lens. I already have the excellent 90mm TS-E lens. However, if Canon makes a TS-E 135mm lens, I'll jump at the chance to buy one.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Ah that's very true. I'm thinking of the MP-E 65 where the lens moves in and out. Probably won't have to worry about that on a 135mm
Upvote
0
dafrank said:
Can I just thank you for your excellent informed commentary on this. I've learnt something, and I'm sure others have too. This is exactly why I come here.
Upvote
0
SecureGSM said:dafrank,
What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached?
I never said anything was wrong with it. What I said was that there was a "rule of thumb" for 35mm film or "full frame" camera sensor cameras, and that there is one, is incontrovertible. For many decades - nearly a century, that rule of thumb was that portraits were best shot with lens focal lengths between about 80mm to 110mm, with 85mm, 90mm and 105mm lenses being the most recommended ones.
As for myself, I often shoot portraits with lens focal lengths up to about 180mm and sometimes, outdoors, even much longer. But, as is so often the case, rules are made to be broken and they are only best applied under certain circumstances.
After shooting thousands of professional portraits, I can give you some helpful information for you to use or discard as you wish.
When you shoot a person's head, their physical characteristics and lens focal length work together to make them look anywhere between good and odd.
For instance, when a person has even slightly bigger than usual ears, or if they "stick out" from the side of their heads a little more than average, lens focal length and posing angles become interconnected and determine whether the person can look their best or not. If that person with unfortunate ears (a very big portion of the population) poses with both ears at least somewhat visible, a lens longer than about 110mm starts to make that person look unfortunate. Their ear size begins to look really too big compared to the rest of their features. Even though this is a sort of an illusion, as their ears really are close to that size compared to their other features, nonetheless they still appear way less than their best. This is easily explained by perspective. Using a "too short" lens for this angle of view causes the foreground to appear bigger than the background - the simple understanding of the effects of perspective dictated by distance from the subject. In such a case, the person's close features, primarily the nose, will look way too prominent, but the ears, being in the "background" will shrink in apparent size compared to the rest of the features of the person's head. The rule-of-thumb focal length ranges, being longer, but not excessively so, will more equalize the ear to nose size relationship, while longer focal length lenses will, by even more equalizing that size relationship, make those with more prominent ears look bad. However, if you picture a person's face much more to the profile, or if their hair covers their ears, or if they have smaller and closer set ears, or you keep their ears in very dark shadow, one may use much longer focal length lenses without fear of making the subject's features look in any way disproportionate.
There is wisdom in the "rule of thumb", but one must also understand its purpose and when best to apply it to your particular situation. I hope this clears things up for you.
Upvote
0
Thank you very much for the clarification, Sir! Well explained and true to my humble experience.
dafrank said:SecureGSM said:dafrank,
What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached?
I never said anything was wrong with it. What I said was that there was a "rule of thumb" for 35mm film or "full frame" camera sensor cameras, and that there is one, is incontrovertible. For many decades - nearly a century, that rule of thumb was that portraits were best shot with lens focal lengths between about 80mm to 110mm, with 85mm, 90mm and 105mm lenses being the most recommended ones.
As for myself, I often shoot portraits with lens focal lengths up to about 180mm and sometimes, outdoors, even much longer. But, as is so often the case, rules are made to be broken and they are only best applied under certain circumstances.
After shooting thousands of professional portraits, I can give you some helpful information for you to use or discard as you wish.
When you shoot a person's head, their physical characteristics and lens focal length work together to make them look anywhere between good and odd.
For instance, when a person has even slightly bigger than usual ears, or if they "stick out" from the side of their heads a little more than average, lens focal length and posing angles become interconnected and determine whether the person can look their best or not. If that person with unfortunate ears (a very big portion of the population) poses with both ears at least somewhat visible, a lens longer than about 110mm starts to make that person look unfortunate. Their ear size begins to look really too big compared to the rest of their features. Even though this is a sort of an illusion, as their ears really are close to that size compared to their other features, nonetheless they still appear way less than their best. This is easily explained by perspective. Using a "too short" lens for this angle of view causes the foreground to appear bigger than the background - the simple understanding of the effects of perspective dictated by distance from the subject. In such a case, the person's close features, primarily the nose, will look way too prominent, but the ears, being in the "background" will shrink in apparent size compared to the rest of the features of the person's head. The rule-of-thumb focal length ranges, being longer, but not excessively so, will more equalize the ear to nose size relationship, while longer focal length lenses will, by even more equalizing that size relationship, make those with more prominent ears look bad. However, if you picture a person's face much more to the profile, or if their hair covers their ears, or if they have smaller and closer set ears, or you keep their ears in very dark shadow, one may use much longer focal length lenses without fear of making the subject's features look in any way disproportionate.
There is wisdom in the "rule of thumb", but one must also understand its purpose and when best to apply it to your particular situation. I hope this clears things up for you.
Upvote
0
Thank you so much! Post like this of yours' are pure gold.
I was already using some similar techniques, but the shadow or hair hiding the ear to be able to use a longer focal length to minimize the nose is a great new technique that I will definitely try out in the coming weeks.
I was already using some similar techniques, but the shadow or hair hiding the ear to be able to use a longer focal length to minimize the nose is a great new technique that I will definitely try out in the coming weeks.
dafrank said:SecureGSM said:dafrank,
What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached?
I never said anything was wrong with it. What I said was that there was a "rule of thumb" for 35mm film or "full frame" camera sensor cameras, and that there is one, is incontrovertible. For many decades - nearly a century, that rule of thumb was that portraits were best shot with lens focal lengths between about 80mm to 110mm, with 85mm, 90mm and 105mm lenses being the most recommended ones.
As for myself, I often shoot portraits with lens focal lengths up to about 180mm and sometimes, outdoors, even much longer. But, as is so often the case, rules are made to be broken and they are only best applied under certain circumstances.
After shooting thousands of professional portraits, I can give you some helpful information for you to use or discard as you wish.
When you shoot a person's head, their physical characteristics and lens focal length work together to make them look anywhere between good and odd.
For instance, when a person has even slightly bigger than usual ears, or if they "stick out" from the side of their heads a little more than average, lens focal length and posing angles become interconnected and determine whether the person can look their best or not. If that person with unfortunate ears (a very big portion of the population) poses with both ears at least somewhat visible, a lens longer than about 110mm starts to make that person look unfortunate. Their ear size begins to look really too big compared to the rest of their features. Even though this is a sort of an illusion, as their ears really are close to that size compared to their other features, nonetheless they still appear way less than their best. This is easily explained by perspective. Using a "too short" lens for this angle of view causes the foreground to appear bigger than the background - the simple understanding of the effects of perspective dictated by distance from the subject. In such a case, the person's close features, primarily the nose, will look way too prominent, but the ears, being in the "background" will shrink in apparent size compared to the rest of the features of the person's head. The rule-of-thumb focal length ranges, being longer, but not excessively so, will more equalize the ear to nose size relationship, while longer focal length lenses will, by even more equalizing that size relationship, make those with more prominent ears look bad. However, if you picture a person's face much more to the profile, or if their hair covers their ears, or if they have smaller and closer set ears, or you keep their ears in very dark shadow, one may use much longer focal length lenses without fear of making the subject's features look in any way disproportionate.
There is wisdom in the "rule of thumb", but one must also understand its purpose and when best to apply it to your particular situation. I hope this clears things up for you.
Upvote
0
LonelyBoy said:
My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop. I held the remote trigger in my hand.
Does that make me weird?
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:LonelyBoy said:
My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop. I held the remote trigger in my hand.
Does that make me weird?
Oh yes indeed!
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:neuroanatomist said:LonelyBoy said:
My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop. I held the remote trigger in my hand.
Does that make me weird?
Oh yes indeed!
Or perhaps slightly vain - the 135 mm being so flattering
Upvote
0
Similar threads
