Which tilt shift lens, or fix in post?

bass_junkie83

bass_junkie83

Messages
4,367
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
By day, I am a structural engineer and I do a fair bit of photography for my company of new projects for our website and advertising. It seems to be a good way of keeping them sweet when I want to take a day off to shoot a wedding for example. But as it is something I do in work time, and get no additional pay for, I haven't payed out for anything specific to help me with this.

I have now just been contacted by our larger parent company who would like me to photograph one of their projects. This will be in my own time, so a payed job, which would likely lead to regular work so long as they are happy with the results.

With this in mind, I would like to put some extra effort in to do as good a job as I can, so I am thinking of hiring a tilt shift lens as this is the obvious choice of lens for architectural photography.

The question is, do I go for the 17mm or the 24mm?
The 17mm will obviously be a benefit if I can't get enough distance to fit an entire building in at 24mm. Some buildings they will want photographing can be quite large, the want me to shoot a hospital at the moment.

The downside is we also do a lot of glazing work, and the 17mm wont allow me to use any filters, in which case maybe the 24mm will be a safer bet?

Failing that, I could get neither and use any of my current lenses and create a panorama and correct the perspective and distortion later. In which case, do I take the multiple shots by eye, or splash out on a nodal ninja?

So many choices! :D
 
If this could potentially lead to more business, I'd suggest hiring both options for this shoot, then buy which ever works best for you if more business comes your way. You might find you need both, or neither.
 
For me, one of the best articles on using tilt shift is an early one by Kieth Cooper over at Northlight Images.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html
The reason I'm pointing you to this is to highlight using shift to create seamless panoramas, which may mean the 24mm is adequate for your needs.

Definitely worth having a play with them both.
At the end of the day it comes down to personal preference.
They are both superb lenses!
 
If it was me, I don't think I'd be buying a T&S, not from what you've said and bearing in mind the likely subjects. At least not before checking out the options.

T&S lenses are great for creating effectively deep depth of field in landscapes (or the opposite, very shallow DoF, though this can be simulated in software) though how much DoF do you need for these structures? And they are good for correcting converging verticals etc in architecture, though I would suggest software is at least as good for this, possibly better. And T&S lenses don't zoom.

Basically, a decent lens like the 17-40L at f/8 or f/11, would give you plenty of DoF and excellent quality. Sort out the verticals in Lightroom* (takes seconds), use panorma technique when you need to, have a go at some mild HDR to retain both sky and shadow detail (faux-HDR in Lightroom is also very effective if you are careful with ETTR exposure and have a good sensor, like your 5D2), and use a polarising filter as and when.

*edit: also fixes distortion, vignetting and CA with a mouse click.
 
Last edited:
I'd shoot with what you're comfortable with - either the T&S or a standard lens and post process. Both will, by and large, give you the same result (after all you're using the shift motion of the lens). One downside to post processing is that you can reduce image quality in the areas you have to adjust to correct verticals.

Just keep it to what you're happy with, adding stress to jobs is never good!
 
For the start you can use 17-40, shoot a bit wider, pay attention to verticals and correct in LR. This gives fairly acceptable results, at the cost of some resolution, size and loss of wideness.

For pro use I'd eventually get TSE. 24mm sounds like the more general one to use (samyang are releasing theirs very soon, so could be a cheap good alternative to Canon). Wider jobs can be done with 17-40... 17mm is very nice, and is probably more suited for interior, close tall buildings, etc. It's your call!
 
I'm not sure I buy this alleged reduction in quality you get from correcting verticals in post processing. I accept the theory right enough, but if you start with a high quality image, it's really not noticeable. I've done some big corrections will no ill effects.

And there is a natural limit to how far you can go, and I find that's not very far before the correction looks weird and buildings start to look top-heavy and wrong - long before sharpness falls apart.

And there are other drawbacks to using T&S lenses - they need to be on a tripod to set the correction accurately. And they also have some optical issues, with sharpness falling off when you push right to the edges of the field, and at the same time this promotes uneven vignetting that is awkward to correct, and distortion too (not that they have much of that).

Not making a strong pitch, but my hunch is certainly to try the software approach first. If it works, a lot easier in the field, and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
If you are just photographing images for use on the web then correction in post will give you an acceptable result. If you want to create images for print then you may be better of using a shift lens. If you do go for the shift lens option a 24mm would be a better all round option than 17mm. If you have a look on my site most of the externals were taken with the Nikon 24mm PC-E shift lens on a full frame body.
 
Thanks guys. I am pretty familiar with correcting perspective in post now, as that is what I have been doing for some time. I am now thinking if there is the potential for doing more of this, whether stepping up a level and using the right tool for the job as it were would be worth while.
I am not looking to buy one at the moment, but renting one for a couple of days as and when these jobs come up is feasible and if I find it's a better way of working then I wan always look to buy one later.

I often use a tripod so that doesn't put me off at all.

Maybe I'll go for the 24mm TSE to try, and also make sure I get the same shots with my current methods as back up in case I fudge it up!


ah5168 said:
If you are just photographing images for use on the web then correction in post will give you an acceptable result. If you want to create images for print then you may be better of using a shift lens. If you do go for the shift lens option a 24mm would be a better all round option than 17mm. If you have a look on my site most of the externals were taken with the Nikon 24mm PC-E shift lens on a full frame body.
Click to expand...

Mainly for web, but there will be occasional printing. We have a few of my images printed and put up around my office already so likely others will want the same.

I see you have done Prospect College in Basildon. Me too, that's actually one of my projects. :lol:

EDIT: Actually, I can use one of my photos of Prospects as an example of what I already do, and what I want to improve on.
This was shot with the 17-40 and corrected in PS.

Prospects+College+_1_.jpg
 
Last edited:
All off for now. They have found someone else who will do it for half the price, but they will keep me in mind for the future.

Ho hum, beans on toast again this week. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top