What can tilt-shift lenses do that post-production cannot?
- Thread starter dirtcastle
- Start date
- Status
I really should post more sample images taken with this lens, I've been kind of busy working on other adapters and playing with other lenses I'm working on making conversion kits for 
IMG_4959.jpg by Ontarian, on Flickr
Other adapters I sell include
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170785828179?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1681wt_1385
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180871581032?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1948wt_1385
and
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180855493584?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
I'd try to dig some up from my flickr photostream but I'm just out the door on a family errand right now.
IMG_4959.jpg by Ontarian, on Flickr
Other adapters I sell include
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170785828179?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1681wt_1385
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180871581032?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1948wt_1385
and
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180855493584?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
I'd try to dig some up from my flickr photostream but I'm just out the door on a family errand right now.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
you are right - only the version 2 of the 17 and 24mm can do that.
However, and I have done it because there is a step-by-step tutorial, the 90mm can be re-aligned to have the tilt and shift in the same axis - it's reversible btw
Upvote
0
dirtcastle said:
This questions frequently comes up and is rarely answered properly.
The simple answer is that the 17mm TS-E allows you to reduce the depth of field so that it looks like you're shooting with the equivalent of a 17mm f/0.35 lens. Yes that's 0.35 - 3 stops faster than f/1.4. In other words it allows 5 stops shallower DOF than a f/2.8 lens.
Furthermore if you're shooting a situation which requires very slow apertures it allows you to maintain fast apertures with the same depth of field. The net effect is that when you're shooting at f/16 with the 14mm you'll be shooting at f/5.6 with the 17mm TS-e, which lets you use the sweet spot of the lens and reduce diffraction. The end result is up to 70% more resolution. Finally the distortion effects of a tilt shift lens are higher quality than what you can do in post processing by a noticable margin. You also can do a lot of special effects, AND to top it all off the 17mm TS-E is compatible with telecovnerters which means you get both a 17mm 24mm and 35mm lens.
So:
Q: what can tilt shift lenses do that post production cannot?
A: They can appear to have 5 times faster aperture, twice the resolution, can do special effects and you get 3 top quality lenses when combined with telecoverters.
Upvote
0
The new tse lenses are incredibly versatile. To me the mf is no downside. These lenses require careful planning and a bit getting used to it. Once you became friend with such a lense you can't help it but love it. And iq is beyond the slightest doubt. Pp is of minor importance and thus the loss negligible. Well done, Canon!
Upvote
0
Product photography would be another good use of a tilt-shift. Sometimes it is near impossible to get the whole product in focus with standard lenses.
Upvote
0
ontarian said:
Ah, never really shopped at keh.com, although have heard of it. I was only going off of the Ebay price. For ~$400 + conversion kit (~$550 total) I'm very interested. Doesn't seem to be any up on Keh.com right now though :\
Upvote
0
ontarian said:I really should post more sample images taken with this lens, I've been kind of busy working on other adapters and playing with other lenses I'm working on making conversion kits for
IMG_4959.jpg by Ontarian, on Flickr
Other adapters I sell include
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170785828179?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1681wt_1385
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180871581032?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1948wt_1385
and
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180855493584?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
I'd try to dig some up from my flickr photostream but I'm just out the door on a family errand right now.
Yowza, that's a lot of gear! I did find some very positive reviews on the FD TSE. I may just keep my eyes open and if I can find a bargain on one you'll have a customer
Cheers and good luck with your adapter biz!
Upvote
0
I really appreciate all these helpful posts, even Ontarian for hijacking and plugging his gear (just messing with you buddy). ;-)
The 14mm looks great, but in this focal range, I want full control over all types of distortion. Plus, I also feel like the 17mm TS-E is gonna be a better value for giving me so many variables to play with, beyond aperture. I definitely want a lens that can make me some money on the architectural/interiors scene. I'm hoping the 17mm TS-E will force me to step up my "pro" game.
The ability to add a teleconverter to the 17mm TS-E is the deal-winner for me. I've also considered the 45mm TS-E f/2.8, but a 35mm equivalent is close enough!
Thanks again, y'all!
The 14mm looks great, but in this focal range, I want full control over all types of distortion. Plus, I also feel like the 17mm TS-E is gonna be a better value for giving me so many variables to play with, beyond aperture. I definitely want a lens that can make me some money on the architectural/interiors scene. I'm hoping the 17mm TS-E will force me to step up my "pro" game.
The ability to add a teleconverter to the 17mm TS-E is the deal-winner for me. I've also considered the 45mm TS-E f/2.8, but a 35mm equivalent is close enough!
Thanks again, y'all!
Upvote
0
dirtcastle said:
If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.
- You lose a lot more quality with a 2x converter than a 1.4x
- The 24 is sharper than the 17 to start out with
- The 17 has serious flare issues (no surprise given the front of the lens). The 24 handles flare very well.
- The 24 can take filters, the 17 cannot (or at least cannot easily...)
- The do not have to worry as much about the front of the lens and don't have the huge lens cap to carry around
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:
Those are all important considerations.
My concern, vis-a-vis "17mm vs 24mm", is that I will lose the wide end of the focal range (between 17mm and 24mm). It seems like a lot of the potential work I might see for this lens is with interiors. And it would seem like 24mm is going to be too tight for kitchens, entryways, master bathrooms, etc.
The 35mm equivalent is really just a "bonus" mostly, not as crucial as I might have suggested with my comment. My biggest concern is not being covered on the wide end. I can always crop a 17mm shot down to 24mm, and so on.
If I were shooting primarily outdoor shots with plenty of distance, then the 24mm would be my choice. But for the price tag, the versatility of the 17mm seems more practical for me. Maybe if there was a reverse teleconverter... then the 24mm would look a lot more practical. ;-)
Upvote
0
dirtcastle said:
17mm vs 24mm in terms of field of view reminds me of when I recently rented the 14mm. Holy wide angle batman! 17mm is a bit less wide, but it's still going to be a huge difference compared to the 24mm.
That said, all of the points kirispupis made are pretty accurate, although the lens cap isn't necessarily as big a deal I'd think. At least, as long as you don't lose it, then you're screwed until you can buy a new one.
Upvote
0
dirtcastle said:
I do quite a bit of RE photography and IMHO you really need both of them. There will be times you have to deal with flare and the 17 isn't an option. There will be interiors where the 24 is not wide enough. You will have to shoot in the rain (at least I do here in Seattle
) and the 17 is most definitely not the lens you want for that.I use both lenses very heavily. In general I use the 17 for interiors and the 24 for exteriors, but not always. I find that in very large homes the 24 is more appropriate because you're not trying to make the home larger at that point - you're trying to sell its features.
Here is an example of what I mean
Sunrise Melody by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
While here is a shot where the 17 was more appropriate
Master Bedroom by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
I also use the TS-E 90 occasionally - mainly for shots of the property from the dock if it is a waterfront home. I have at times wished I had a 45 but it is relatively rare. The Canon 45 is not a great lens though and if I had the money I would pick up the Schneider 50 instead.
I think for your standard run of the mill house you can get away with a 17-40 - a TS is overkill, but when you shoot properties that are advertised nationally and make magazine covers, then you need to invest in the proper equipment.
Note that for what it's worth, when I travel I rarely use my 17 (the Burj Khalifa was a 2715 foot exception). My 24, on the other hand, is my most used lens after my 70-200 II.
Upvote
0
you can effectively increase the angle of view (or coverage) from the 24mm TS so that it can be used in tighter spaces.
simply orient the lens so that the movement becomes a rise/fall and shoot two frames. first frame should be the top most composition of the scene and then second the lower portion of the scene. you then copy and paste the two frames on top of each other, reposition, and erase the overlap. this also works in a vertical orientation though i personally found it much easier to work as a horizontal. a fairly simple work around that increases the usability of an already fantastic lens.
2 immediate benefits to this technique is that you are effectively increasing the field of view without expanding the spacial relationship of the background/foreground (something the 17mmwould certainly increase significantly). second, you are also increasing the resolution of your final image to roughly 1.5x (depending on your execution of the technique) the native camera resolution.
the only thing you have to be mindful of is that you do encounter a bit of parallax in the upper portion of the composition so overlapping and erasing should be done with care. also, you need to be mindful of the limits of the image circle and not push the rise/fall to its extreme or you will encounter vignetting in the center portion of your final merged composition. i guess another consideration is that you are changing the final aspect ratio away from the 8x12 native full frame format so some additional cropping of the final composition isnt uncommon if a more common output size is required (ie an 8x10).
does this technique negate the need for the 17mm T/S? no...but if you already have the 24mm T/S you may find that you can get by without dropping another 2k.
simply orient the lens so that the movement becomes a rise/fall and shoot two frames. first frame should be the top most composition of the scene and then second the lower portion of the scene. you then copy and paste the two frames on top of each other, reposition, and erase the overlap. this also works in a vertical orientation though i personally found it much easier to work as a horizontal. a fairly simple work around that increases the usability of an already fantastic lens.
2 immediate benefits to this technique is that you are effectively increasing the field of view without expanding the spacial relationship of the background/foreground (something the 17mmwould certainly increase significantly). second, you are also increasing the resolution of your final image to roughly 1.5x (depending on your execution of the technique) the native camera resolution.
the only thing you have to be mindful of is that you do encounter a bit of parallax in the upper portion of the composition so overlapping and erasing should be done with care. also, you need to be mindful of the limits of the image circle and not push the rise/fall to its extreme or you will encounter vignetting in the center portion of your final merged composition. i guess another consideration is that you are changing the final aspect ratio away from the 8x12 native full frame format so some additional cropping of the final composition isnt uncommon if a more common output size is required (ie an 8x10).
does this technique negate the need for the 17mm T/S? no...but if you already have the 24mm T/S you may find that you can get by without dropping another 2k.
Upvote
0
You can also eliminate, or at least minimize parallax by using a rail which allows you to keep the lens stationary while effectively the body does the shifting.
Upvote
0
- Status
