Tilt shift

digitalfailure

digitalfailure

Staff Bog Cleaner 2015
Messages
12,595
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
A question for those with tilt shift lenses, which focal length would you say is the most versatile ?

I know it's a really ambiguous question with much depending on the size of the subject being captured, but do you find that for the majority of shots you use a specific lens more than another?

I'm somewhat torn between a 24mm or the 45mm
 
digitalfailure said:
A question for those with tilt shift lenses, which focal length would you say is the most versatile ?

I know it's a really ambiguous question with much depending on the size of the subject being captured, but do you find that for the majority of shots you use a specific lens more than another?

I'm somewhat torn between a 24mm or the 45mm
Click to expand...

It depends what you will be photographing. I bought my 90mm for products so that for me is the most appropriate for my work. If you were shooting architecture I'd imagine you'd want the wider angle lens. I guess perhaps the best thing for you to do would be to look at the lens you most use for those subjects already and purchase the focal length closest to that.
 
I based my choice on thinking about which focal lengths I used with my zooms and based the T/S decision mainly on that. That lead me to getting the Canon 24mm tilt/shift as I mainly use wider lenses. I suppose in that respect it's no different to choosing what focal length you want in a prime lens - what's the sweet spot where you find yourself working most often? Base your decision on that.

The mainly bit comes in because while the 17mm might have been a viable choice from a focal length point of view, the fact that (a) it's more expensive and (b) the protruding front lens element makes filter selection harder (though I believe Lee have an adapter in the pipeline) made it less attractive to me.

Haven't looked back since getting the 24mm one though.....
 
Blimey, I'd not even considered using a TS for product work :eek: another variable :runaway:

I've been playing with shooting buildings and mainly using my 24-70 but I think 50mm was the longest I've shot at, hence being torn between the 24-45's
 
I know this is a complete generalisation but if architecture is the main aim then the wider lens is likely to be a better option. Reason for this is that while you can potentially use the shift function to allow you to take multiple shots at different shift positions and then stitch them together to give a wider view, if you're already using the shift function to keep verticals, er, vertical then the ability to do this is likely to be severely limited. And while you can possibly crop down a too wide image you can't put stuff back in from not having a wide enough field of view (not meaning to give an egg sucking lesson here :) )
 
No sucking eggs lessons here, I've never used a TS before, but I'm getting tired and frustrated by trying to correct converging verticals in Ps

The 24 would seem to be the better choice but I wanted to be clearer in my mind between that and the 45 for most UK sized buildings etc :D before dropping 1.7k on another lens
 
I would hire one first to get an idea, I use the 45 for weddings, it just gives the edge and definition, I did own a 90 for a short period but found the CA on a 1dx just a bit too pants, the 24 & 17 are amazing pieces of glass the 17 will be a tad too wide in some cases if you're shooting a building though :)
 
I'd say wider too, but it's a lot of money so suggest hiring first.
 
Any particular size building? Or is it a wide range? Just thinking that while the cheaper 45mm might be OK for stuff like houses or where you can shoot from a reasonable distance, the 24 is going to give you far more flexibility. Also the longer working distances where 45 would typically be used means that perspective correction is likely to be less of a problem and the 24-70 zoom can cope reasonably well in that situation.

Where abouts in Chestershire ;) are you? Might be possible to have a look-see with mine......
 
I've got a 24mm that I no longer use too much. You're in Cheshire, and I'll be in Runcorn on Wednesday night.If you fancy a trial (usual terms - you break it and you pay for it!!) and you can get to the bridge for say 7PM you're welcome to take it away for a trial period.
 
45mm gives a very pleasing perspective if you can get far enough away from the building, but I find in most cases the 24mm is needed. Also the 45mm is more or less restricted to detail shots for internals, whereas the 17mm and 24mm are my go to lenses for most interior shots. I have the 90 in my bag for detail shots - quite useful but I use it for less than 1% of shots.
 
I went through the same debate when I bought mine and ended up getting the 24mm for a number of reasons. Its a good FL for architecture on FF , if you use it on a crop it has the FOV of 40mm (ish) , it takes extenders well (so I have read but have not tried) so you can get 33 and 50mm with extenders , no idea about IQ though. And lastly and this was something I did not appreciate until I got a Mk2 ( I had a Mk1 previously) the ability to tilt and shift in different planes is invaluable and this facility is not available on the 45 or 90mm.
And finally it is Sharp ( I get blood running down my monitor)
 
I'm a Nikon user, and don't have the luxury of the 17mm.

I initially went with the 45mm, as I wanted this for landscapes, and that was perfect for my style. When I wanted to use it for architecture it was too restrictive and had to get the 24mm; if Nikon did a 17mm I would have probably opted for that even though I don't like such wide angles.

I'd second the opinion to rent one for a week and test it in anger, see which works for you best.
 
digitalfailure said:
... for most UK sized buildings etc :D ...
Click to expand...
Surely it's not the size of the building that matters - it's how far away you can get from it :)
I do interior architectural work as well as exterior, for which the 24 suits me fine. You can always crop if it's too wide, but then I guess you can stitch frames together if they're not wide enough...
 
Or if you have the 17mm TSE you can use the canon 1.4 mkiii extender with negligible image degradation to have a 24mm focal length, and with lee releasing a filter adapter, this has made life easier too
 
An ex extender might do the trick, considering that you don't want to be shooting architecture at the wide aperture end anyway ;)
 
G'ah I'm busy all this week, I live in Chester so Runcorn isn't too far away. :(

Most of the stuff I want to shoot is in city centres mainly tall buildings with interesting geometrical exteriors.

I think I might rent a 24mm mmII and head off into Birmingham or London for a day.Thanks all for the comments :thumbs:
 
There is an H lens adaptor available for FF bodies for around £300 with tilt & shift movements which will allow you to use H lenses, not sure if anyone has bought one yet but would be interesting to see the results!
 
Flightphoto said:
There is an H lens adaptor available for FF bodies for around £300 with tilt & shift movements which will allow you to use H lenses, not sure if anyone has bought one yet but would be interesting to see the results!
Click to expand...

Have you got a link?
 
Ozei said:
It's a shame Canon & Nikon haven't followed Hasselblad who make a tilt/shift adapter. It's compatible with their 28, 35, 50, 80 and 100mm lenses so you get five tilt/shift focal lengths in one package - clever stuff.

http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/products/h-system/hts-15.aspx
Click to expand...

Saw that when it first came out and made me wonder the same; how come non of the other manufacturers went down the same route?


That aside, don't forget the Schneider also make Tilt\Shift lenses. Also, it is worth checking if the Canon lenses can tilt & shift on the same plane, check it out. Nikons' don't, and you've got to manually adjust them to allow for that.
 
Wail said:
... Also, it is worth checking if the Canon lenses can tilt & shift on the same plane....
Click to expand...

The mark II versions can be set to tilt and shift in the same plane or perpendicular planes. The mark I versions come set for perpendicular planes, but can be reset by Canon to be on the same plane, or you *can* dismantle the mount and do it yourself if you're feeling brave :)
 
magicolor1 said:
The mark II versions can be set to tilt and shift in the same plane or perpendicular planes. The mark I versions come set for perpendicular planes, but can be reset by Canon to be on the same plane, or you *can* dismantle the mount and do it yourself if you're feeling brave :)
Click to expand...

It's the mkII I've been looking at because of the ability to adjust the plane by 90degrees.
 
Wail said:
Saw that when it first came out and made me wonder the same; how come non of the other manufacturers went down the same route?
Click to expand...

Maybe there's a technical reason why it won't work (although I can't think of one).

Or maybe Canon & Nikon just want to make more money by selling three or four tilt/shift lenses instead of one adapter.
 
Anything to do with shooting portraits 45mm is my choice!
Anything to do with architecture 24mm.
 
I would buy 24mm for architecture if I had the money. In fact I would also buy 17mm. I don't see as much use for 45mm but 90mm starts to get interesting for the different reasons, but would be quite complicated to use compared with 100mm macro
 
daugirdas said:
I would buy 24mm for architecture if I had the money. In fact I would also buy 17mm. I don't see as much use for 45mm but 90mm starts to get interesting for the different reasons, but would be quite complicated to use compared with 100mm macro
Click to expand...

Interesting that you make reference & comparison to macro lens.

I don't know about the Canon variants, but the Nikon 45mm and 85mm do a good 1:2 magnification; with extension tubes can be extremely good. The downside to these, however, is that you can't use the Kenko tubes as they're plastic and will flex under the heavy weight of the TS lens. You'd need the Nikon ones, which are built like a tank.
 
Wail said:
Interesting that you make reference & comparison to macro lens.

I don't know about the Canon variants, but the Nikon 45mm and 85mm do a good 1:2 magnification; with extension tubes can be extremely good. The downside to these, however, is that you can't use the Kenko tubes as they're plastic and will flex under the heavy weight of the TS lens. You'd need the Nikon ones, which are built like a tank.
Click to expand...

Well, 90mm to me means product shots like jewellery, maybe food and an odd flower. That's macro territory and I find 100mm to be the most suitable from my bag. On the other hand tilt would be a nice alternative for the shots you normally approach with f/16 or more.
 
Ozei said:
Maybe there's a technical reason why it won't work (although I can't think of one).

Or maybe Canon & Nikon just want to make more money by selling three or four tilt/shift lenses instead of one adapter.
Click to expand...

The technical reason is that standard non-TS lenses are designed with an image circle (IC) that just covers the 35mm film / sensor.
TS lenses need a larger image circle to still cover the sensor when tilted and / or shifted.
That's why medium format lenses (which are designed for a larger than 35mm IC) can be used with TS adaptors on 35mm cameras.
The size of the lens IC above the 35mm IC determines the amount of TS available
 
Last edited:
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
The technical reason is that standard non-TS lenses are designed with an image circle (IC) that just covers the 35mm film / sensor.
TS lenses need a larger image circle to still cover the sensor when tilted and / or shifted.
Click to expand...

Which is why tilt shift lenses used without movement tend to be very sharp as you're only using the middle of the image circle, not the edges.
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
The technical reason is that standard non-TS lenses are designed with an image circle (IC) that just covers the 35mm film / sensor.
TS lenses need a larger image circle to still cover the sensor when tilted and / or shifted.
That's why medium format lenses (which are designed for a larger than 35mm IC) can be used with TS adaptors on 35mm cameras.
The size of the lens IC above the 35mm IC determines the amount of TS available
Click to expand...

markmullen said:
Which is why tilt shift lenses used without movement tend to be very sharp as you're only using the middle of the image circle, not the edges.
Click to expand...


It makes sense, but also doesn't :thinking:!

Excuse my ignorance, but if this was the case then MF lenses are made for MF cameras and would be weak / poor performers with such a T/S adaptor!? Yet the Hasselblad adaptor is for its own lenses mounted on its own camera bodies ... how come it works for MF but wouldn't work for 35mm? Unless MF lenses are inherently designed differently to accommodate such a mount in the onset :thinking:?
 
Wail said:
It makes sense, but also doesn't :thinking:!

Excuse my ignorance, but if this was the case then MF lenses are made for MF cameras and would be weak / poor performers with such a T/S adaptor!? Yet the Hasselblad adaptor is for its own lenses mounted on its own camera bodies ... how come it works for MF but wouldn't work for 35mm? Unless MF lenses are inherently designed differently to accommodate such a mount in the onset :thinking:?
Click to expand...

The Hasselblad T&S adapter contains optical elements that increase focal length, and also the image circle at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top