# New Tilt-Shift Lenses in the Wild [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 2, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13404"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13404">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>New Tilt-shifts on the horizon?


</strong>We’ve received reports that new tilt-shift lenses are being tested. The 45mm and 90mm have both been on the replacement clock for some time now, basically since the 17mm and 24mm tilt-shift lenses were released.</p>
<p>We’re told that the new lenses are scheduled to appear in early 2014 with a possible announcement shortly have Christmas.</p>
<p>A separate person has suggested a macro tilt-shift lens could also be on the distant horizon.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ddashti (May 2, 2013)

Macro tilt-shift? I wonder what kind of blur that would have.


----------



## bycostello (May 2, 2013)

ooh new toy..


----------



## ijohnsson (May 2, 2013)

ddashti said:


> Macro tilt-shift? I wonder what kind of blur that would have.



No blur. The point is of course to be able to align the focal plane with the subject. That is the primary use, along with perspective control, of a TS lens.


----------



## shutterwideshut (May 2, 2013)

ijohnsson said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > Macro tilt-shift? I wonder what kind of blur that would have.
> ...



+1. By using the TILT function and tilting the plane of focus into the subject plane, a deeper DOF is achieved from front to back. This is good news for macro enthusiasts who want to achieve a deeper depth of field without having to resort with the image stacking technique in post processing.


----------



## TW (May 2, 2013)

Yea! Double Yea! Triple Yea!   

Macro would likely be tilt-only. Maybe something like a 150mm f/3.5? 

I've been expecting a 200mm f/4 L IS replacement for the current 180 macro for ages; 100, 150, 200. Seems about right!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 2, 2013)

shutterwideshut said:


> ijohnsson said:
> 
> 
> > ddashti said:
> ...



Only if the subject is two dimensional, after all tilting doesn't increase dof, it just moves the plane of focus. For instance the ubiquitous fly's eye macro image would gain nothing from tilting.

I am not saying Canon can't or won't do it, they do love their tilt, and macro lenses and combining them would be yet another "because we can" 17mm TS-E moment, but I highly doubt it. Apart from the above mentioned practical use with three dimensional objects there is the MAJOR issue of the J distance and the tilt angle needed at macro distances.

This all falls into the area of Harold Merklinger and his seminal work "How To Focus The View Camera", Everybody, normally with a "knowledgeable" smile, talks of Scheimpflug and his principle, but the really useful guy for us as photographers is Merklinger and his J Point and Hinge Line. See here for a couple of cool gif's and more info http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html

Basically the longer the focal length the more tilt you need for the same effect, AND, and this is the really important bit for a potential macro tilt lens use, the closer the camera is to the plane of focus the more tilt you need. Bear in mind a 90mm TS-E needs 36º of tilt with a J distance of 6", current Canon T/S lenses have 8º of tilt.


----------



## RGF (May 2, 2013)

Better my old ones now


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2013)

Insightful post, PBD...but you're missing the big picture. It's not just a 'because we can' moment - it's one more small step on the road to the EF TS 12-400mm f/2L Macro IS Pancake lens we all want.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Insightful post, PBD...but you're missing the big picture. It's not just a 'because we can' moment - it's one more small step on the road to the EF TS 12-400mm f/2L Macro IS Pancake lens we all want.



There is no way I'd get that if it was only f2! It has to be at least f1.8 (have I drifted off into the 135 threads?), but better yet a 1.4, oh and it needs to be lighter then the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Trouble is if Canon did come out with a EF TS 12-400mm f/2L Macro IS Pancake they'd try and rip us all off, I wouldn't pay any more than $2,000 for one, after all you can get a Tamron 18-270 for $500. ;D
[/irony]


----------



## privatebydesign (May 2, 2013)

But on a slightly more serious note, and thanks for the compliment Neuro, I wonder if 8º, or close to it, is a bit of a limit with the design of the mirror box and the 44mm flange distance. I know there are severe tilt restrictions when using DSLR's on adapters for field cameras due to the shadowing of the mirror tunnel on the sensor.


----------



## jthomson (May 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Insightful post, PBD...but you're missing the big picture. It's not just a 'because we can' moment - it's one more small step on the road to the EF TS 12-400mm f/2L Macro IS Pancake lens we all want.



Will it take extenders and focus at f8 ? ;D


----------



## ahab1372 (May 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> [...]
> See here for a couple of cool gif's and more info http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html
> 
> Basically the longer the focal length the more tilt you need for the same effect, AND, and this is the really important bit for a potential macro tilt lens use, the closer the camera is to the plane of focus the more tilt you need. Bear in mind a 90mm TS-E needs 36º of tilt with a J distance of 6", current Canon T/S lenses have 8º of tilt.


This http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/04/tiltshift-photography-an-introduction-to-tilt/ is also a good resource, especially the simulator here http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/dslr-tilt-shift/ is interesting. You really don't need a lot of tilt for most landscape applications with the camera on a tripod, but for shorter Js and longer focal lengths that changes a lot.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 2, 2013)

ahab,

That simulator is very cool, I haven't seen it before, excellent link, thanks.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 2, 2013)

So, Yeah, the price of used current TSE45MMs just went up?


----------



## ahab1372 (May 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> ahab,
> 
> That simulator is very cool, I haven't seen it before, excellent link, thanks.


yes, it definitely helped me. Only counter-intuitive thing in the simulator is that focus distance gets shorter as you move the slider to the _right_ (maybe not for view camera users).


----------



## kirispupis (May 2, 2013)

I have a feeling by "macro TS" they mean .5x - not 1x. This is very plausible because the Nikon PC-85 is already .5x. If this is the case, even though macro is my specialty, I will unlikely bite because I already have the current TS-E 90 and it is not one of my more used lenses. Of course, if they do manage 1x this lens will be at the top of my list.

The TS-E 45 II is a bit more intriguing. I already own the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II and have considered the TS-E 45, but poor reviews of the current model have dissuaded me. Schneider makes a very nice 50mm TS lens for the EF mount, but at over $3k I could not justify it. As I have run across a number of situations where a TS-E 45 would have been useful, I would likely buy a copy.


----------



## cayenne (May 2, 2013)

I'm thinking of soon (after saving a bit more $$) getting my first TS lens.

I was thinking of going for the 24mm one.

Would this be the best choice to start with? I don't have any primes near this focal length, so it would be something good I was thinking, for regular AND TS photography. And I figured it is good and wide enough for landscapes, building shooting...maybe even for commercial real estate.

Arguments out there pro/con for me on my first TS lens?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## kirispupis (May 2, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I'm thinking of soon (after saving a bit more $$) getting my first TS lens.
> 
> I was thinking of going for the 24mm one.
> 
> ...



This is probably the best TS lens to start out with. It works well for building exteriors and for general purposes. It has generally been my second most used lens on vacations after my 70-200/2.8 II. Unlike the TS-E 17 it accepts filters (well, you can technically put filters on the TS-E 17 but it is expensive and a bit bulky) and has minimal flare problems.

I also own the TS-E 17. It is a nice lens but not as sharp as the TS-E 24 II and flares badly. It also has a huge bulb in the front to protect. It is definitely a wonderful lens and my primary lens for interiors, but the 24 is much more versatile. Note that some people buy the TS-E 17 and put a 1.4 extender on it. Yes, this will work, but you will lose sharpness and will still have the glare issues. I would never do that.


----------



## tolusina (May 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Insightful post, PBD...but you're missing the big picture. It's not just a 'because we can' moment - it's one more small step on the road to the EF TS 12-400mm f/2L Macro IS Pancake lens we all want.


D'oh, you forgot motorized tilt and shift mechanisms for tethered use.


----------



## fredericsiffert (May 2, 2013)

I like TS-E 17mm. Big definition and big effect with this lens.
It's usability for architecture and landscape.

Recently, I take on Volcano.




1DX13554 par fredericsiffert.com, sur Flickr




1DX13570 par fredericsiffert.com, sur Flickr




1DX13519 par fredericsiffert.com, sur Flickr




1DX13512 par fredericsiffert.com, sur Flickr


----------



## KyleSTL (May 2, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> I also own the TS-E 17. It is a nice lens but not as sharp as the TS-E 24 II and flares badly.


I believe that comments like these should always be put into context by saying that the 17mm TS-E is widely considered to be one of the sharpest UWA lenses of all time.


----------



## kirispupis (May 2, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > I also own the TS-E 17. It is a nice lens but not as sharp as the TS-E 24 II and flares badly.
> ...


Yes, in terms of sharpness it is a bit like saying a Ferrari is better than a Porsche. Perhaps true, but few would turn down a Porsche. That being said it does have a big issue with flare. If you look at the front of the lens it is quite obvious why. I have learned to just be careful where I use it, but the TS-E 24 II is far more versatile in that respect.

The other thing is the TS-E 17 is often just too wide.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 3, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> The other thing is the TS-E 17 is often just too wide.



I keep wishing someone would make a 20 or 21mm TSE lens
(I think Zeiss should have a go  )

something in the middle, often 24mm is a bit to tight and 17 is too wide
I find 20 or 21mm is a really nice Ultra wide size


----------



## eml58 (May 3, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> shutterwideshut said:
> 
> 
> > ijohnsson said:
> ...



See, this is why I like CR, I have the 17 & 24 TSE and love them, but didn't know this stuff, Thanks PBD, learn something every day on CR, mostly.


----------



## cayenne (May 3, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



Ok...so, sounds like while the TS-E 17 is sharper, that I'd likely find more utility starting off with the 24...

Thanks for all the input!

C


----------



## privatebydesign (May 3, 2013)

> "Ok...so, sounds like while the TS-E 17 is sharper, that I'd likely find more utility starting off with the 24..."



No, the 24 is sharper, the 17 is the sharpest ultrawide I have used, but it is not as sharp as the wide angle 24. But as has been said, they are both extremely good, I regularly print to 36" from the 17mm and I am fussy.

For general use the 24 is a far more practical lens, the 17 is unmatched in what it does, but it is very specialised, if you don't have a specific over-riding need for the fov of the 17 from one shot then the 24 is the far better buy. I do a lot of interiors and for me the fov of the 17 was a necessity, that it does so much more and is great fun to use really is a bonus.


----------



## Caps18 (May 3, 2013)

The 17mm TS-E would be sharper if there was a 100x zoom option in liveview. It is a silly software limitation. I mean, my eyes are pretty good, but I can't tell if I am focusing just right, even when zoomed in 10x.


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (May 5, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking of soon (after saving a bit more $$) getting my first TS lens.
> ...



Dear Sirs,

About TS-E 17mm f/4L I often come cross to the same conclusion, that is something like this, that the Canon TS-24mm f/3.5L II is superior to the wider one TS-E 17mm.

However my experience is quite the opposite.

I have both lenses and I have used them both side by side, for about two years now, with my full frame EOS.

The IQ with TS-E 17mm has been by a fair degree sharper compared with my my TS-24 II.
I also use the TS-E 90/2.8 which can be used almost like a macro maybe better to call it close-up-lens, and I have also tested this 90mm TSE with the EF1.4xIII,
and also with Extension Tubes II.

• But the most useful of the two wide angle TS-E´s , is still the Canon TS-24mm f/3.5L II and it also takes filters such as graduated ND filters.
( But please do not forget - it is manual lens! But you can use it as a "normal" 24mm-lens with very good IQ if you do not shift-nor-tilt it! As soon you do that you need also to do the exposure all manually but if not shifted nor tilted your camera can measure the light situation correctly.)

About the TS-E 17mm f/4L in use I can tell you that you need to always think twice when handling this lens and surely some extra care is required to keep 
that bulgeous glass pristine and without scratches!

I think that the difference between my two TS-E lenses might be only maybe because my specific one of the Canon TS-E 17mm seems to be a top-notch one.

But of course if Canon can make even a better TS-E 90mm f/2.8 maybe with the "L" sign I would maybe even be interested in an upgrade.

These are my poor 2cents.

( [email protected]´s comment about the TS 12-400mm f/2 pancake!!! hahaha! a good one!)

Wishing you all here happy shootings! It is spring season here in Sweden but delayed by almost three weeks!

All the Best!

C


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 9, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> I have a feeling by "macro TS" they mean .5x - not 1x. This is very plausible because the Nikon PC-85 is already .5x. If this is the case, even though macro is my specialty, I will unlikely bite because I already have the current TS-E 90 and it is not one of my more used lenses. Of course, if they do manage 1x this lens will be at the top of my list.
> 
> The TS-E 45 II is a bit more intriguing. I already own the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II and have considered the TS-E 45, but poor reviews of the current model have dissuaded me. Schneider makes a very nice 50mm TS lens for the EF mount, but at over $3k I could not justify it. As I have run across a number of situations where a TS-E 45 would have been useful, I would likely buy a copy.



Personally, I jump TS-e focal lengths and use extenders for the focal gaps. I chose a Ts-e17L and TS-e 45mm and I use a 1.4x or 2x TC if I need longer. 
The 45 is a really good lens, it's sharp enough wide open and you shouldn't be put off but any poor reviews....although my TS-e 45mm is probably my least used lens.


----------



## Komodor (May 14, 2013)

I used befroe 24mm ts-e and now ı have 24mm ts-e II this is just gorgeous. İt is not like other lenses, CA, sharpness, build quality everything is awesome...

I this news is true ı will be waiting this new TS lenses....


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 16, 2013)

I'm not too fussed with a pair of new longer TS-e lenses. The original TS-e lenses were better, the longer they were. The worse one was the TS-e 24mm L, which optically was the weakest of the bunch. The TS-e 45 and 90 were / are optically very good. When Canon realeased the new TS-e 17L and TS-e 24IIL, they created two stellar lenses and turned the tide of Canon weak wide lenses. Sure, there were a lot of new improvements too, like newer coating and a far better movement system (which allows tilt and shift in every possible combination at a flick of a switch). But the longer lenses don't need the same optical improvement, they are already very good. Sure, they could do with an improvement in their movement mechanism and newer coatings but I question the diffenence that a double in retail price will do to the final images. Sure a newer lens will be better, but probably not observable in the final photographic output. I have a TS-e 45mm and it's a very low use lens for me and not one I use THAT often...in fact I don't know anyone who makes a lot of use for this niche lens.
I just get a feeling that Canon look at their lens portfolio and someone noticed that these two old lenses stick out a bit as old and legacy.


----------

