# New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 7, 2014)

```
<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/2014/05/new-canon-tilt-shift-lenses-at-photokina-cr1/"></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/2014/05/new-canon-tilt-shift-lenses-at-photokina-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Another mention of new Canon tilt-shift lenses. Replacements for the TS-E 45 f/2.8 and TS-E 90 f/2.8 are expected. We’ve heard there’s a possibility of 3 new tilt-shift lenses, but we do not know what the third one could be. Apparently the new lenses will be shown at Photokina 2014 in September.</p>
<p>We’ve had a couple of people speculate that a macro tilt-shift lens could be a possibility for Canon. We have heard of a new and interesting macro lens was in development, but we’ve never received any details of what would make it “interesting”.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## mackguyver (May 7, 2014)

If they're half as good as the new Ls, I'll be buying all of them eventually!


----------



## Dylan777 (May 7, 2014)

It does sound like "the year of lenses"


----------



## mackguyver (May 7, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> It does sound like "the year of lenses"


Yes, and September sure is taking forever to get here!


----------



## Random Orbits (May 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > It does sound like "the year of lenses"
> ...



It just gives you a bit more time to save up. Have fun with the TS-E 17. It is a sweet lens!


----------



## mackguyver (May 7, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Very true, and my lens is sitting at Kinko's FedEx Office right now - just a few more hours until I have it in my hands!


----------



## jrista (May 7, 2014)

I would love a Macro TS. I love creative focus, but on the flip side, a TS lens for macro would let you maximize your depth of field without having to use extremely small apertures, which means you can resolve even more detail. Sounds like a win-win to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2014)

I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.


----------



## jrista (May 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.



I suspect if Canon is actually designing a Macro TS lens, they have probably taken all of those things into account. They are going to be NEW lenses, after all.  We'll have to wait and see...but I still think a controllable focal plane would be useful for macro.


----------



## keithcooper (May 7, 2014)

Macro and tilt can indeed be useful. I use a TS-E90 quite often with bellows or extension tubes.

As has been noted though, just tilting doesn't give more DOF, just 're-arranges' it to some extent ;-) Macro and camera movements are part of why I built a DSLR back for an old 5x4 camera some time ago. Interesting to play about with, but not something I've had a lot of practical use for.

None of the TS rumours I've seen have any real detail (no surprise there) but I have had several comments relating to encoders in lenses, putting T/S info into EXIF data (there was a Canon patent some time ago potentially related to this).

Still looking forward to what might turn up... ;-)


----------



## SoullessPolack (May 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.



First of all, Canon has obviously thought about this if these lenses in fact do exist. A multibillion dollar corporation is not going to dismiss these most relevant of aspects. You're not the first person to think about this.

Secondly, do you have actual calculations to show what you claim, or are you just guessing? Would you be able to support your claims? I clearly don't have enough knowledge, and that's why I can't say whether you're right or wrong. Thanks in advance for your response.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 8, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I would think the notion of a macro t/s is more appealing to people who don't fully understand the practical implications of the tilt concept rather than actual macro photographers. Changing the block of focus to a wedge of focus that decreases to a point could well result in less dof at macro distances. It would be great for almost two dinensional subjects, but move to three dimensions and that ever narrowing cone of focus is going to hurt, and you would need a lot more than 8° of tilt too, 20° would be a minimum even for a 45mm, take that to 90mm lens and you'd need even more to get the movement you'd need.
> ...



Why would you assume I didn't think Canon would think of this? I am fully cognisant of the fact that I am not the first to think of anything, and am quite content with that realization. My point wasn't that Canon hadn't thought it through, it was posters clamouring for a macro T/S probably haven't.

Second, with regards calculations I can give you THE BOOK. http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/index.html#FVC I can also point you to Harold M. Merklinger's two gif's that demonstrate the maths on Keith Coopers own page (I can't believe I am talking tilt shift with Keith Cooper  ) here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html

To clarify my earlier answer. Macro T/S would have some limited benefit, particularly for small product work, such as ladies watches and jewelry, circuit boards and microchips, something with a flat, or close to it, face, something you might well use the current 90 TS/E and a tube for. But it wouldn't help the typical macro shot of a fly's head type scenario at all.



keithcooper said:


> Macro and tilt can indeed be useful. I use a TS-E90 quite often with bellows or extension tubes.
> 
> As has been noted though, just tilting doesn't give more DOF, just 're-arranges' it to some extent ;-) Macro and camera movements are part of why I built a DSLR back for an old 5x4 camera some time ago. Interesting to play about with, but not something I've had a lot of practical use for.
> 
> ...



I have written here before about the possibility of tilt and shift data being recorded to auto correct vignetting and CA though using the expanded canvass method works well at the moment and any auto settings would almost certainly necessitate a dreaded trip into DPP, but something like the Hasselblad HTS 1.5 Tilt Shift adapter does but built into the lens makes sense. Plus the recent patent for the display of the plane of focus as a perspective grid on the LCD or computer, a much finer geared tilt would be welcome too, as well as the now compulsory seamless tilt and shift orientation rotation.

Make the IQ as good as the 24 TS-E MkII and reduce the body/rear tilt needed for parallel lines in retrofocus designed T/S lenses when using tilt/swing, which are both much easier the longer the focal length, and Canon will have two or three winners.


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> To clarify my earlier answer. Macro T/S would have some limited benefit, particularly for small product work, such as ladies watches and jewelry, circuit boards and microchips, something with a flat, or close to it, face, something you might well use the current 90 TS/E and a tube for. But it wouldn't help the typical macro shot of a fly's head type scenario at all.



I think your missing some of the potential that a TS lens has for macro. Improving the DOF does not necessarily only mean making it deeper. I think you are also stuck on the notion that the only use for TS is simply to create a deep wedge of focus. I've done my fair share of fly eye macro photos, and even when you maximize your DOF, the usual case is that you can still see depth of field falloff around the eye. It wouldn't take that much tilt to allow you to orient the focal plane such that it maximizes DOF on a fly eye, without needing to actually tilt the lens to it's maximum to create a deep wedge. The wedge isn't even necessary, all that's necessary is to align the focal plane around the plane of your subject. 

That's often simply what achieving focus is about. In bird photography, it's the same deal. You either wait for the bird to move such that it's oriented parallel to the plane of the sensor, or you move yourself to achieve the same thing. The depth of field can then be very thin, but all that matters is that the FRONT HALF of the bird be in focus. The back side of the bird can be entirely out of focus, but it doesn't matter, because you can't see it. 

A TS Macro would give you more control and more freedom to orient your focal plane such that it maximizes DOF _around the parts of your subject your interested in_. *Maybe *that means creating a maximum wedge. Maybe it simply means a slight reorientation of the focal plane without creating a wedge, and simply aligning the focal plane in such a way that a greater percentage of your subject that is facing at least generally in the direction of the sensor is parallel to and within the focal plane (even if the focal plane isn't parallel to the sensor anymore). In the latter case, more fine grained control over tilt is even more important than doubling the amount of tilt.

Here is one of my more recent fly macro shots:







You can clearly see the DOF falloff on the back part of the eye, because the eye is not parallel to the sensor. It wouldn't have taken much tilt to reorient the focal plane to be parallel to the eye, thus solving the problem.


----------



## Rudeofus (May 8, 2014)

The question still remains, how much tilting you can achieve with an SLR camera where you have to account for the mirror box. Even in medium format T&S is mostly seen as toy, only large format cameras give you the flexibility to take full advantage of the Scheimpflug principle.


----------



## keithcooper (May 8, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> The question still remains, how much tilting you can achieve with an SLR camera where you have to account for the mirror box. Even in medium format T&S is mostly seen as toy, only large format cameras give you the flexibility to take full advantage of the Scheimpflug principle.


A very useful toy if you take the opportunity to explore the limitations and capabilities ;-) 

For my own work, the limitations of having to shoot Large Format would vastly outweigh the convenience of smaller format cameras, but YMMV.

When I experimented with making an adapter for my MPP 5x4 it is indeed the mirror box and mount aperture that limits movements - still fun to try though ;-)


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> The question still remains, how much tilting you can achieve with an SLR camera where you have to account for the mirror box. Even in medium format T&S is mostly seen as toy, only large format cameras give you the flexibility to take full advantage of the Scheimpflug principle.



Well, if private's information is correct, Canon currently allows up to 8° of tilt freedom. If all your really doing is slightly shifting the focal plane to align with the primary plane of your subject, I think most of the time you'll be quite fine with 8°. That assumes Canon doesn't find a way to improve that range. There are always going to be certain circumstances where TS just doesn't and cannot offer you the flexibility you might potentially need, however having TS capabilities with macro at all is still an improvement over not having it.


----------



## zagga (May 9, 2014)

Tilt in a macro lens is on the verge of pointless, shift on the other hand would be quite useful.

However, a lens optimised for close focusing (rather than infinity) with a *VERY* large image circle and TS-E capability would be an excellent lens.


----------



## Rudeofus (May 9, 2014)

Tilt in macro is certainly not pointless if it is done correctly, and several good examples have been already listed in this very thread. Large format cameras were never used for their convenience or ease of use, they were professional tools to be used when smaller cameras couldn't do the job properly.

The reason why I brought up medium format cameras is their bigger size compared to DSLRs which gives designers extra degrees of freedom and the traditionally low price sensitivity of the medium format market. If decent T&S was available for medium format, an improvement in fine mechanics, manufacturing and lens design could well trickle down into the world of small format cameras. Since this is not the case, I would not expect much from a DSLR compatible T&S macro lens, even if it bears the Canon label.


----------



## zagga (May 9, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Tilt in macro is certainly not pointless if it is done correctly, and several good examples have been already listed in this very thread.



In the context of this topic they are. We are talking Canon TS-E's here not Arca Swiss and Rodenstocks.

I fail to see how a Canon camera and Macro TS-E focused on a fly's eye would gain any significant improvements in focus depth using 8°-12° of tilt/swing. You might be able to move the plane of focus but thats not exactly what most people hope for when talking TS-E lenses as can be seen when ever macro and TS-E are mentioned in the same sentance.


----------



## zagga (May 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Here is one of my more recent fly macro shots:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think if you added tilt to that image you possibly might be able to shift the plane of focus enough to bring the back of the fly's eye into focus but then all the front part of the face would be out of focus.


----------



## ScottyP (May 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > It does sound like "the year of lenses"
> ...




I am glad you guys are getting something you are excited about, so don't take it the wrong way when I say this, but I really don't think a couple of tilt-shift lenses alone, macro or not, constitute what must people would look back on to call 2014 "the YEAR OF THE LENS". (Cue sound of trumpet fanfare). 

They may be great lenses but they are of fairly narrow appeal. I doubt 10% of even pro photographers use tilt shift lenses, and the percent of all photographers using them must be smaller than that. I am sure the people who do use them get very good use out of them, and again, i am happy for you here, but They need to come out with some more lenses before this year will go down in history for lens introductions, IMHO.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2014)

zagga said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one of my more recent fly macro shots:
> ...



Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.

Having MORE capabilities is NEVEr useless. It can't be...it's *more capabilities.*


----------



## zagga (May 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.
> 
> Having MORE capabilities is NEVEr useless. It can't be...it's *more capabilities.*



But the TS-E only tilt in one direction, no tilt and swing. While the rotating mount in nice it won't help in this situation IMO. Tilting and moving the plane of focus will only move the slice of sharp focus to different parts of the fly's eye/head and not bring all the head into sharp focus.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2014)

zagga said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.
> ...



Of course you can use tilt and swing with the Canon TS-E lenses. You can only tilt/ swing one way initially, but then you rotate to compound the movements.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2014)

zagga said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's TS lenses can be tilted and rotated (as well as shifted, three degrees of freedom). It would be a simple matter to adjust the focal plane such that you get the whole eye in focus without losing the face. These things are quite subtle as well...we aren't talking about the need to tilt 30° here. Fundamentally, ANY amount of tilt would give you control over the focal plane. Also, don't forget, you can still stop the lens down as well. If you need more literal DOF even with tilt, then there is nothing stopping you from doing what you did before with narrow apertures.
> ...



Well, first, in the case of the sample photo I shared, I absolutely do believe a TS Macro lens would allow me to get the whole head in focus. The entire actual head, front to back, would not literally be all within the depth of field, but again, that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the part of the fly's head that is visible is sharp and within the depth of field. It's a fly. The DOF doesn't have to be that thick to achieve that goal. Without T/S, you have to stop the lens down CONSIDERABLY in order to deepen the depth of field enough to encompass enough of the fly's head to make it all appear sharp, however it can never be as sharp at f/32 as it could be at f/11. With a TS lens, just a little bit of tilt and rotation will allow you to adjust the plane of focus such that you can maximize the potential an f/11 DOF has, and not need to stop down to f/32 (which will obliterate a lot of detail due to diffraction.)

More capabilities are more capabilities. It isn't going to magically make it so you can use f/2.8 for macro, but it will give you options you did not have before. It will allow you to utilize the DOF you have at less diffraction limited apertures more effectively. That's the entire point. That's what a bellows in old MF and LF view and field cameras were for, not really for "creative" focus, but to give you more options to maximize your use of the DOF you have at wider (and thus, less diffraction limited and therefor sharper) apertures.

It doesn't matter the degree of the additional capabilities. Having them at all, limited or extremely capable, is better than NOT having them. That's all my argument is.


----------



## epsiloneri (May 9, 2014)

zagga said:


> But the TS-E only tilt in one direction, no tilt and swing. While the rotating mount in nice it won't help in this situation IMO.


Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation


----------



## zagga (May 9, 2014)

epsiloneri said:


> Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation



Tilt or swing = tilt+rotation


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2014)

zagga said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation
> ...



All that matters is that Canon TS lenses have three degrees of freedom:

Tilt
Shift
Rotation

With those, you have the same general controls as any other TS lens, and the same general controls as a lens+bellows in a view/field camera. There aren't any control limitations with Canon lenses. They allow full focal plane control, the only real limitation is how much tilt is allowed. Again, though, in the macro context, that doesn't really matter. It's additional control, control you don't currently have. Those additional adjustments give you the ability to make better use of your focal plane and DOF. 

What terms you or anyone else prefers to use to describe the adjustments is irrelevant, all that matters is all three movements are possible with Canon TS lenses.


----------



## epsiloneri (May 10, 2014)

zagga said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > Tilt+swing = tilt+rotation
> ...


Hm, let me put it like this then: if the tilt decides how forward you go, and swing how far to the left you go, then you can achieve the same result by first taking the bearing (rotating) and going only forward (tilt). It is the same thing, and not a matter of opinion.


----------



## keithcooper (May 10, 2014)

*swing/tilt*

If I rotate the tilting axis of a TS-E lens 90 degrees I can go from up/down tilt to left/right swing

On the front standard of my MPP 5x4 (the only view camera I have here) I have side to side swing -and- up/down tilt at the same time. _[There are other more complex movements, but they resolve to putting a lens axis at an arbitrary position and orientation in front of the film/sensor]_

By combining tilt and swing I am obtaining the equivalent of tilting the lens on an arbitrary axis (pointing it in a particular direction), just what I can do with a TS-E via a combination of tilt and rotation (I also have a direct reading of actual tilt, so can use my tilt tables to get my 'J' distance)

The two rotations required for an arbitrary 'combined' tilt are different with the two approaches, thus may be easier (depending on your background/experience) to visualise one way or the other.

I would never claim that the degrees of freedom of a TS-E lens on a DSLR match the gymnastics you can get from (skilled) use of the movements of a view camera ;-) However, both require a degree of mental geometry and visualisation that I know from experience trying to teach people use of TS-E lenses, can be more obvious to some than others.

I'm sure I'm helped in this from my past experience as a geologist, mentally visualising intersecting planes (faults/bedding etc.) in space in front of me 

BTW I don't feel that learning all the maths of camera movements is of the slightest value to any but a tiny minority of photographers, indeed in all the stuff I've written about the subject I've tried to avoid as much maths as possible (put an equation into the middle of an article and you'll reduce the number of people making it to the end by 50% ;-)

The TS-E 45 and 90 could do with updating with the newer more flexible T/S movements. EXIF data would be nice.
My suspicion is that any macro with movements would be a 'because we can' project with a rather hefty price tag...


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2014)

fussy III said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > a) I absolutely do believe a TS Macro lens would allow me to get the whole head in focus.
> ...



Your up-front refusal to provide any evidence to back up your claims only gives me immediate cause to doubt you. So sorry, but I cannot trust your evaluation. There is no reason to trust your evaluation. You can't simply say "I'm 'through' with backing up my assertions with evidence." and expect that to win you any awards. 

Again, the point is not to get the fly's head from front to back within the DOF. The back side of the head is immaterial, you can't see it anyway. All that matters is that you change the focal plane such that it aligns with, or at least aligns BETTER with, the primary angle of the key part of your subject that you want in focus. Aligning your focal plane at all is an improvement, and gives you more freedom to possibly reduce your DOF and gain back some of the resolution lost to a super narrow aperture.

In the case of my fly, which BTW was shot hand-held at _*f/5.6 with a mere 1/100th second shutter*_, that means angling the plane closer on the right to farther on the left, and with a certain amount of rotation such that it also angles across the top part of the fly's head. Stop down a bit more, say to f/11, drop the camera onto a tripod/focusing rail, and I absolutely have no doubt that even the SLIGHT movements allowed by a current Canon TS lens would allow me to maximize my use of DOF to improve the amount of my fly's head that was in focus, without necessitating stopping down to the minimum aperture. 

If Canon's new line of TS lenses offer greater freedom in the adjustments they offer, it doesn't matter if a 20° movement in macro space isn't as good as the same movement for landscapes. It's still better to have the option of tilt than not. It will give you some degree of control over adjusting your focal plane around your subject. It does not magically increase your DOF, of course not. However it lets you control your focal plane such that more of your DOF envelops more of your subject without forcing you to lose resolution to more diffraction by stopping down to obscene levels.


----------



## SoullessPolack (May 10, 2014)

fussy III said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > a) I absolutely do believe a TS Macro lens would allow me to get the whole head in focus.
> ...



Why would you post a long, drawn out response, yet refuse to provide any evidence? It's certainly not for time's sake, because you rambled on and on. 

As jrista stated, and as is painfully obvious to someone with common sense, having tilt would be massively beneficial. It would not be a panacea to the DOF problem in macro, but it would be a step in that direction, and having some ability to alter the plane of focus is better than having no ability. 

Right now your argument sounds akin to those who deride ISO 409200 being in cameras, when it is always better to have the option to even take a photograph than to not take one.


----------



## Rudeofus (May 10, 2014)

If you look at the Scheimpflug principle, you see that the distance ratio lens to sensor/film plane vs. lens to subject plane is an important factor how much tilting you actually need. If the lens is much closer to your sensor/film than to the subject, a few degrees tilt may put some planar subject matter into focus that is 45 or more degrees off. Typical examples are landscape images which are tack sharp from front to back: although the surface is 90° off the sensor/film plane, relatively small lens movements are all that is needed.

In the case of macro, your lens may be closer to your sensor/film plane than to your subject, and you need much more tilt capability to put some subject into focus that is not parallel to your sensor/film plane. 8° tilt, as afforded by current Canon T&S line up may compensate for not much over 20° subject plane tilt, and that is not all that much. jrista provided an example where 8° tilt may or may not have helped, whereas fussi III seems to speak from experience where 20° tilt was too little to be helpful.

Ask yourself, how many times your subject plane is less than 15° off your sensor/film plane, and whether that kind of subject matter would allow you to play with lens movements.


----------



## zagga (May 10, 2014)

fussy III said:


> First of all: Let me thank you for mentioning the back of the head is not in need of being in focus.
> 
> I was referring to the visible part of the front and back respectively, speaking anatomically.
> 
> ...



+1

For me a macro TS-E would be of most use as it would be tuned for close focusing rather than infinity which normally means better/less less aberrations at closer distances and a large image circle when focused closer rather than normal lenses that are largest at infinity. As a macro lens I believe from all my experience with the 90mm TS-E and extension tubes that the movements would be of little use but as a table top product shots lens I'd buy it straight away.


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2014)

fussy III said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Your up-front refusal to provide any evidence to back up your claims only gives me immediate cause to doubt you. So sorry, but I cannot trust your evaluation. There is no reason to trust your evaluation. You can't simply say "I'm 'through' with backing up my assertions with evidence." and expect that to win you any awards.
> ...



Let me be clearer then. What experience? What better funding? You've provided zero evidence to support your claims that you have more experience or have better funded your equipment. By refusing to supply any evidence of any kind, because you feel no need to prove your point, makes me question your points all the more. You have given no one here ANY reason to trust that you have more experience of have higher quality, more expensive equipment that would allow you to prove the point anyway. 

Perhaps you do have more experience, perhaps your a TS lens collector and you've spent tens of thousands of dollars buying all of the ones available on the market. Why should I believe that? It's just your naked word, a word you've already stated you have no intention of backing up with any evidence. An up-front insistence that you aren't interested in proving your points, when proving your point with actual evidence would easily give me cause to reevaluate my own, eliminates any reason for me, or for that matter anyone else, to trust anything you say. 

Just to be clear about WHY I don't trust your word. If you hadn't preemptively stated you refuse to provide any evidence of any kind to back up your claims (which still fundamentally miss the point I'm trying to make), I wouldn't be so insistent about my reasons for not trusting you...I wouldn't have a clearly and well defined reason NOT to trust you, and quite possibly the opposite. Only those who are afraid their own assertions may not be valid are willing to state ahead of time that evidence doesn't matter.  



traingineer said:


> Your theorie is right, but the effect and possible benefit of tilting is so little at this distance (and with a three dimensional subject), that it approaches negligible.



Based on what theory? Your own personal anecdotal "experience"? Or can you lay down the math for me, and for everyone else, to prove the point? How negligible? Were talking about a few millimeters of DOF here...a few degrees of tilt could have a significant impact on how that few millimeters envelops your subject. It doesn't have to be significant, because were talking about insignificant distances and sizes in the first place.



traingineer said:


> Yes, you will be able to make the focal plain say more level with the right eye-portion of the fly (minimally, 4 degrees of tilt might be right for that). But the DOF will remain to be so shallow that you will find yourself stopping down to an f-stop where you will hardly see any difference to the untilted version. And you will still have difraction. After all, this head isn't much less three-dimensional than a ball. Where do you want to slice it?



I don't need to make the DOF deeper. I just need to change the relationship of DOF to my subject. A few degrees of tilt WILL do that. I think everyone is thinking I just want to create a giant wedge like you do with landscape photography, to make everything from the foreground to infinity "in focus". That's NOT what I am talking about. The DOF doesn't need to be "infinitely" thick. It just needs to be reoriented to conform to the orientation of the subject, that's it. As for where to slice...well, perhaps a picture:






Details in the image. Everything is to scale. I calculated G based on f (Scheimpflug Principal), which is assumed to be 100mm. Tilt angle of the lens is 8°. All other terms were derived from G and f, and everything is to scale assuming 1 pixel represents two millimeters. Subject distance is 10" (254mm). For a 20mm ball (i.e. fly head), the effective gain in focus on the top of the ball is about 6mm farther back. You also lose about the same 6mm forward on the bottom of the ball. The loss of focus on the bottom of the ball/fly head doesn't matter, because it cannot be seen (it's underneath, given the position of the sensor/vantage point of the viewer.) 

So, 6mm. That isn't much. It's quite trivial. Unless your subject is a freakin fly!  Now, if I had a full 20° of tilt in the lens, instead of just a mere 8°, the actual change in the plane of focus on the subject would be even more significant, despite still being in terms of mere millimeters.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2014)

That calculation is for a simple lens, any 135 format macro T/S is not going to be a simple lens, just look at the reverse tilt needed when using the current T/S's to see that. It also assumes infinity focus, mainly because Scheimpflug was primarily interested in battlefields from a balloon, about as removed from a fly's head as you could get, read the booklet I linked to earlier for the more complicated equations on focusing a view camera for an accurate estimation that takes lens focus distance into account.

Personally, the way I read the thread, every person who has or claims to own a T/S lens has said the same thing, tilt/swing is not a particularly useful feature to have in a dedicated macro lens other than for some product photography; on the other hand, those who are counting on theories and personal feelings think it will.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think everyone is thinking I just want to create a giant wedge like you do with landscape photography, to make everything from the foreground to infinity "in focus". That's NOT what I am talking about. The DOF doesn't need to be "infinitely" thick.



That so isn't how tilt works, but, whatever.


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think everyone is thinking I just want to create a giant wedge like you do with landscape photography, to make everything from the foreground to infinity "in focus". That's NOT what I am talking about. The DOF doesn't need to be "infinitely" thick.
> ...



First, there is a reason I put the term "infinitely" in quotes. When you tilt a TS lens down, you make the focal plane angle from below the lens outwards and away. The depth of field is narrower at the point where the focal plane meets the lens and image planes, and becomes increasingly wide the farther out you go. It isn't infinite (unless you follow the focal plane for infinity), but it DOES allow you to reduce your aperture and still keep your entire field in acceptably sharp focus. Indeed, you will generally be doing landscape photography like this at hyperfocal distance. But it is how tilt works.

From Wikipedia:



> The DoF is zero at the apex, remains shallow at the edge of the lens’s field of view, and increases with distance from the camera.



As for all the rest, I know you love to ignore theory as if it has absolutely no bearing on anything in reality. That's your choice. 

Still, I don't need to increase my DOF like tilt does for distant landscapes. All I need to do is tilt the focal plane around close up subjects so that the focal plane and DOF are better oriented relative to the subject. The change in focus doesn't need to be significant, a fraction of a millimeter change in the focal plane around a close up macro subject would produce a visible change in focus. Even if I can't get a full 20° of tilt at the focal plane out of a complex multi-element TS lens, it's still an improvement over not having tilt at all. Mere millimeters change in the focal plane are all that matter for macro.

Oh, and BTW, given that a specially built tilt/shift macro lens has not actually ever been built for 35mm format, NO ONE here actually has any first-hand experience with it. The theory is the only thing we have.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

Here are some actual T/S products for specifically marketed for macro photographers:

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/tilt-shift-bellows/
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CONTAX-C-Y-MICRO-MACRO-BELLOWS-EXTENSION-TILT-SHIFT-/380895790528?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58af2885c0
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/eos_macro_tilt_adapter.html

If T/S was so useless for macro, and is incapable of producing any kind of visible improvement in actual use, why would anyone invest money designing and developing T/S bellows or adapters? 

LensBaby also offers a macro adapter for all their optics, and it works with all of their T/S optics:

http://store.lensbaby.com/products/macro-converters/

This is actually probably one of the most viable T/S macro products for Canon cameras on the market right now. I forgot all about LensBaby, but this stuff isn't even new. I was looking at their Composer Pro and macro converter years ago when I still had my 450D. If Canon doesn't make a T/S Macro, I'll probably put the LensBaby stuff back on my list.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

fussy III said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need to make the DOF deeper. I just need to change the relationship of DOF to my subject.
> ...



I will never understand why anyone has to get directly personal over these topics. I have not insulted you in any way, nor am I simply interested in "being right".

You demanded I simply trust your words at face value, and preemptively flat-out stated that you were not going to back up any of your claims (which for me, personally, comes off as one of two ways...either extremely arrogant and haughty, or as an indication that the other party doesn't necessarily trust their own position), claims which were supposedly steeped in a vastly superior base of experience (how you could know that, given that you don't know anything about me, given this is the first time we've ever encountered each other, is curious.) I explained, perhaps directly but otherwise without insult, why I could not simply take you at your word like that. Simply an honest but plain and direct explanation of my stance. Your getting a whole lot more personal and insulting here, and THAT is the only thing on these forums that TRULY does no one any good. We've had far too many threads destroyed by people like you getting personal like this. I don't really care what you think of me, but there are other people on these forums who don't like threads going way off the tracks by people flinging insults back and forth. 

I'm not going to exchange insults with you. 

Here is another image. Maybe this will replace a thousand words and all my "hot air":






Crappy, crude, but hopefully effective example of focal plane, DOF, and a "fly head". Maybe DOF increases, slightly, as there would be a very slight wedge. But that isn't really what I'm after. I lose DOF along the bottom of the fly eye and head, but I gain a small amount at the top of the head. It doesn't have to be a lot. It can be just a couple millimeters...that's all I'd need to push the focus falloff far enough to the back of the fly's head to matter. Add in some rotation (or swing), and I could reorient the focal plane and wedge to bring more of the fly eye in focus. Since the fly's head is round, I can afford to lose some DOF at the back right area where the head turns into the mandible (it's just empty air there).

How much actual lens tilt would be necessary to get this much focal plane tilt for a subject less than a foot from my sensor? I dunno. I haven't actually engineered such a lens myself. I've found a number of T/S Macro Bellows now that claim to have 15° of tilt. Some of these products are fairly pricey, $200-300 (just for a bellows, we aren't talking about any amount of optics here), so I am at least willing to suspect that 15° of tilt is enough to be useful for subjects very close to the lens, given these things are marketed explicitly as "macro tilt and shift bellows."

Anyway, I have no interest in proving right or wrong with you. Just being clear about what _*I'm trying to say*_. I haven't felt anyone has even understood what I'm trying to say, all I've gotten is direct counterarguments based on mistaken assumptions based on what you guys think I'm saying.

I disagree with you. You clearly disagree with me. We can exist happily in a state of disagreement without insulting each other, or demanding that either of us trust each other just on our word alone. For anonymous people on the internet, someone's word is worthless. However, at least I've tried to back up my claims with some evidence. At least I've tried to make my original point, what my ultimate goals would be if I had a specially designed TS Macro lens from Canon, clear. I believe T/S movements are beneficial for non-flat, non-product macro photography, such as insects. I don't expect to see some ridiculous improvement that would allow me to shoot at f/2.8, but maybe I can drop down to f/11 or f/16 from f/32 or f/45, and use tilt and maybe some shift to make better use of my focal plane, and envelop more of the interesting part of my subject within the DoF. I mean, that's what T/S is all about...changing your focal plane, which in turn changes what part of your subject falls within the depth of field, without moving the sensor. 

I know that on my 7D, I can get pretty sharp results up to f/20 despite the fact that is a diffraction-limited aperture. Beyond f/20, the effects of diffraction (even in macro situations), really start to kick in and hurt my detail. By f/32, things are usually unacceptably soft. And, just to finish off the point. So what if I still have to shoot at f/22, even with tilt and shift? I've shot other macro subjects as narrow as f/22 before, and there is still usually a considerable amount of focus falloff. Even a small amount of tilt would be enough to MAXIMIZE the amount of my subject that is near the focal plane and within the DoF. Maximize doesn't necessarily mean entirely eliminating all focus falloff everywhere....it just means moving those points of falloff around such that more of your subject is sharp for the SAME or SIMILAR DOF. DOF doesn't have to get huge, or even larger...changing the angle of the focal plane is really all that I'd really need.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 11, 2014)

Everybody knows what you are trying to say, everybody with experience is saying it doesn't work as well as you think. 

Despite you saying I ignore the theory, you are the one that is, you cannot ignore the fact that your calculations are for a simple lens, and any macro t/s is not going to be a simple lens, but more importantly, you are ignoring a gigantic variable, focus distance, your calculations only work for a simple lens with focus at infinity, not the normal focus distance for macro shooting. Your calculations are off by several orders of magnitude.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

Here is an actual example of tilt at macro distances and scales:









fussy III said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Your getting a whole lot more personal and insulting here.
> ...



I never said you were an anonymous computer. You are, however, an anonymous *person*. I have no reason to believe you are as intelligent as your incredible arrogance might otherwise make you seem, therefor I have no reason to take you at your word that your supposed experience give you some insight that cannot be demonstrated in a "lengthy scientific manner." 

Angry, arrogant, and insulting words have no meaning in the original context of this thread. Which means we have _another _derailed thread. Guess that isn't surprising, seems to be the M.O. around CR these days...


----------



## fussy III (May 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> I have no reason to believe you are as intelligent as your incredible arrogance might otherwise make you seem.



Well, be assured I try to use my brain at all times.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/bellows-attachment-castbal-ts/

This is even better than the LensBaby gizmos if you really want a highly flexible macro system. For anyone who is actually interested in a flexible macro setup, you can buy all the parts on B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=novoflex+castbal&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Pricey at $1904 for the bellows/focuser, lens, and adapter, but probably still less costly than any potential new Canon TS Macro lens that might be announced this year.


----------



## fussy III (May 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.



The fact that this exists does not proove it will work for your purposes around 1:1. It might not even live up to the purposes by which the device is marketed. Just be aware of that possibility. This set-up is certainly useful for product-photography but also more clumsy than many others on the market with regards to plain tilt-movements.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

fussy III said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.
> ...



Perhaps, however I haven't seen any other system that allows 25° of tilt freedom either. I've seen some that go up to 15°, but they also had a similar focusing/tilt rail setup. 

Also, I think this system would still be considerably easier to use than my 100mm macro lens on a ball head. Trying to focus and compose that way is a major PITA, especially if your subject tends to be on the move. A bellows on a shiftable focus rail is a lot easier to work with for composition and focusing. For macro photography of other natural, but otherwise immobile subjects (like flora), a setup like this would be ideal, allowing not only for improvements in the utilization of the focal plane, but also creative focus uses that have nothing to do with maximizing focus or dof.


----------



## fussy III (May 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Therefor I have no reason to take you at your word that your supposed experience give you some insight that cannot be demonstrated in a "lengthy scientific manner."




Oh, I am positive that it CAN be demonstrated in a scientific manner. Otherwise I couldn't trust my knowledge. I was hoping I could leave the scientific demonstration to you. 

I do not mean to be arrogant now, I just find the following sentence very fitting for our dispute: "There is an intimate positive relationship between epistêmê and technê, as well as a fundamental contrast." (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/)

Regards


----------



## fussy III (May 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> For macro photography of other natural, but otherwise immobile subjects (like flora), a setup like this would be ideal, allowing not only for improvements in the utilization of the focal plane, but also creative focus uses that have nothing to do with maximizing focus or dof.



Here I would have too stress again that you are very likely overestimating the practical benefits. I think I understand what you are looking for, because I was looking for the same. And I did not find it because it doesn't work that way at this magnification. It will work for a daisy's blossom to some degree, but not for the three dimensional blossom of an Orchid, especially not for that of a smaller species. 

Even selective focus is achieved more straightforward just moving round forth and back than by tilting. It will work for a big orchid's blossom or a daisy though, but artistically, it will mostly just feel like playing around rather than creating anything of special beauty or meaning. That is my subjective feeling of course. However, it is a feeling that came about in real life, so it is related to _ techne_ again while this time round, I believe there is no scientifical way of proving my feeling is "true". It is certainly what I would call a true feeling though.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

I do not disagree, there is indeed value in both experience and theory. I'm not trying to dismiss experience, honestly. However I do believe that if tilt is of no value at macro scale, it should be easy to prove, especially for someone who has ready access to a wide variety of tilt/shift lenses with a range of capabilities and designs. I'm also not above admitting I could be 100% wrong here, but I honestly do not believe I am.

PrivateByDesign and I have a long history. He has his way, and he thinks it is 100% purely objective, and in many cases he very much is, however there have been cases where I believe he is blind to his bias, and his bias is very persistent. Hence my reason to doubt him until I get some kind of concrete proof. You came on pretty strong, immediately claiming a superior position then also immediately and subsequently trouncing any possibility that you would provide any evidence to back up your position. I'm happy that your happy and confident in your position...but that doesn't change anything.  

You have still made claims I have no reason to believe just on your word alone, or even the combined word of you and private, and given that there is apparently quite a number of T/S bellows systems explicitly designed for *macro *photography, some with magnifications up to 2:1 and tilts from 10° to 25°, that only gives me further cause to doubt your strong assertions, based on _your own_ personal experience, that tilt is of no practical value for macro photography. Experience is well and good, but how different, really, is photographing a carpet of moss with a tiny mushroom in the middle different from photographing a ring on a slate in a whitebox? I don't see any fundamental difference in the subject distances, angles, or viability of T/S between these two things. In the case of the fly, it's head as a whole is indeed a largely round object like a ball...but from the standpoint of what's visible within the field of view and what really needs to be in focus, the top of the eye and front part of the fly's head that is within view ALSO make for a relatively _flat _subject at a slight incline, which is again not all that different from a carpet of moss with a mushroom in the middle or a ring on a slate in a product photography box.

If T/S can be useful for product photography at macro distances, it can be useful for nature photography at the same distances. Insects, being ever-mobile subjects, are certainly rather arbitrary subjects...your not always going to have them cooperating and giving you the opportunity to get a good composition with a good angle on the interesting parts to fully maximize the potential of a flexible T/S macro system. But the same core argument could be made about insect macro in general...that you can't really get the most out of macro photography with insects, for the very same reasons. And yet...thousands of photographers have found a way, not only to make their subjects cooperate, but even photograph them, sometimes hand-held, at magnifications up to 5:1, even in natural lighting.

So, epistêmê or technê, theory and/or experience... I'm not speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint myself. While I have not actually used a macro t/s bellows before (hopefully something that I'll rectify before too long, I actually really want to get some actual evidence that demonstrates what, if any, and how much of a difference tilt could actually affect focus at macro scale now...I'm about ready to DIY myself a little bellows system and use my 50mm and 100mm lenses to test the theory out in the short term), I am not without experience with macro or T/S photography. The assertion that I am simply an ignorant, hopeful idiot ******* to be disappointed, well, it's certainly your right to have an opinion, but it also certainly doesn't give me any reason to trust what you say at face value any more than I had reason to before. 

Well, good night.


----------



## fussy III (May 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> based on your own personal experience, that tilt is of no practical value for macro photography.



Never went that far. 

Just as example: You have a solid black marble of 12mm diameter full frame at f2.8 (2:1). Non tilted, its outline is sharp. As soon as you tilt, you can stop down as much as you want, you will not get the whole outline/conture into focus any longer. In addition, as was mentioned before by others, at a close range the angle of the focal plain does not change as much when tilting. So even if you cut the marble in half, you (the sensor) would still need to nearly face the surface of the cutting plain at maybe 30 degrees when tilting 20 degrees in order to get the plain into focus throughout ( I do not have any charts for that and may be off).

I just remembered that most of my examples have crashed and disappeared. Otherwise I could have sent you at least pictures of a key at appr. 1:1 and 2:1 that show how little change of perspective 12 degrees of tilt allow for when the task is to keep the entire surface of the key in focus.

I owe you examples now somehow, is can see that. But please understand that I will only post something once I find a subject worthwhile to photograph. I simply have spend too much time testing, buying and reselling lenses. I do not like it anymore.

Please do not invest too much money and be disappointed like I was. You might want to try the 8degrees that an EF to EF-Adapter allows for (ebay). Mine didn't last long and had a very stiff lens-mount. But you can check for the effect that way without investing to much.

What I came to use most beside the Pentax 67 100 Macro and a Tilt-adapter from Zörk is the Pentax 645 75mm with the life-size-converter that belongs to the 67-Macro. That way I can use the Mirex-Adapter Pentax 645 to EF with tripod food. It is more precise and sturdy than the Zörk- Adapter and I can change 645-lenses without taking the foot from the tripod or having to rearrange tilt-angle. And the 75mm is really light-weight and sharp.

Otherwise: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/step-into-the-world-of-miniature-with-david-clapp-11285
But I do not quite share the enthusiasm. Diffraction is high at f22. And there are all those close-range limitations mentioned before. And mostly, you will have vignetting when attempting maximum tilt on FF.


----------



## 100 (May 11, 2014)

To get an idea of the possibilities with tilt-shift macro on 35mm:
http://www.photodady.com/blog/2012/05/18/tilt-shift-stacked-hdr-macro-photography/

Pennies are flat and don’t move. With living insects the third dimension and the possibility of movement make it a lot harder to get the result you want. My experience with tilt is that it takes a lot of time to get the shot exactly like I want it. Set the angle, focus (manual only), check the focus plane in live view, adjust the angle, check again, etc. Sometimes I need to do that 3 or 4 times to get it right and that’s with non-macro static subjects on the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

*About the fly shot*
I see about 1/3 of the fly filling 80% of the height of the picture.
If shot at 1:1 on a 7D (22.3 x 14.9 mm sensor) that would make the fly 35mm or so. That’s either an enormous fly, or this is a substantially cropped image. 
What is the real diameter of the flies eye? 

What the DOF is depends on how you calculate it and the values you use. 
The 100L at its minimum focus distance of 30cm is no longer a 100mm lens but about a 75mm lens 
It’s shot at f/5.6, but at the minimum focus distance the effective f-stop (that’s what determines the DOF) is no longer f/5.6 but about f/11. 
If I use DOFMaster http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to calculate the DOF (Canon 7D; 75mm; 30cm; f/11) I get a DOF of 0.52*cm* (5.2mm). 
With 100mm; 30cm and f/5.6 I get 0.13*cm* (1.3mm).

If I use the Macro Depth of Field Calculator at Cambridge in Colour http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm (a great source of information by the way) and put in a magnification of 1; sensor Size 1.6 crop and f/5.6 (f number as seen by the camera) the DOF is 0.45*mm*. This is millimeters instead of centimeters, so there is a huge difference between these calculations. 

With a DOF of 1mm or less you need to be very accurate with the focal plane to get the exact result you aim for. I think a TS-E 1:1 macro will only be useful with static subjects.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

The fly actually was a rather large one. I took those shots late last year, weather was cold, and it was just before sunset, so the inset was very sluggish. I coaxed it into a stick, and it just hung there. I clamped it into a gorilla holder, stuck it on a tripod, and then started shooting. 

Like I mentioned before, if your dedicated, you find a way of getting things to work the way you want them to. Some macro photographers regularly resort to bait, which often gets insects to stop and sit still for a minute. Others resort to setups, where they generally know where the insect will be in a few minutes span of time, so chasing it down isn't nearly as tough a job. The other way is to find insect subjects in the mornings (usually) when it's cold, and they are lethargic. They they can be quite cooperative subjects.

The image is cropped about 50%, so the fly isn't 35mm in size. I'd also say magnification was probably closer to 1:1.1 or so than 1:1...it was shot hand held, after all, which makes it extremely difficult to nail focus right exactly at 1:1. The largest subject size in a 1.6x crop at 0.9x mag is ~17mm, so the size of the fly's head is less than that. If I run the numbers through Cambridge in Color's calc, I get a DoF around 0.5mm. Now, CiC assumes a CoC of 0.032mm. Given my crop and the fact that the image I shared here is pretty much exactly a 3x downsample, I've calculated my CoC at 0.02mm, and when I run the math on that, I get a DoF of 1.03mm. 

If I run the numbers through DofMaster, I get a DoF of 3.3mm. I figure subject distance was probably about 33cm, 330mm, or around 13 inches. 

A DOF of around 1-2mm sounds about right, given what I know about the actual subject size and imaging distance. 




Regarding the effectiveness of tilt in macro. I honestly can't say what it would be like with a design like Canon's old TS-E lenses. They are much more complex designs. The Novoflex Bellows T/S design, however, for all intents and purposes, uses a "simple" lens design attached only to the front of the bellows. Focus is achieved by moving the lens on the bellows or the whole bellows assembly forward/backward...there are no additional optical elements behind the Schneider APO Digitar lens. In which case the math works much more like it does on the Wikipedia page for Schiempflug, in which case my original diagram of a 20mm ball would apply much more readily. If I could gain almost 6mm of additional DOF with tilt on a 20mm ball, I figure another half a millimeter shouldn't be out of the question with the Novoflex and a 3-4mm fly head. If I assume an effective aperture of f/21 (i.e. if I had stopped down to f/11 instead of f/5.6), and a CoC of 0.02mm, then the DoF is 2mm (according to 2Nc((m + 1)/m^2))...if tilt gets me even a mere half millimeter of increased focus along the back of the fly's head, then I think I'd have achieved my goal. And at a significantly less diffraction limited aperture than a real f/22.


----------



## e17paul (May 12, 2014)

100 said:


> To get an idea of the possibilities with tilt-shift macro on 35mm:
> http://www.photodady.com/blog/2012/05/18/tilt-shift-stacked-hdr-macro-photography/
> 
> Pennies are flat and don’t move. With living insects the third dimension and the possibility of movement make it a lot harder to get the result you want. My experience with tilt is that it takes a lot of time to get the shot exactly like I want it. Set the angle, focus (manual only), check the focus plane in live view, adjust the angle, check again, etc. Sometimes I need to do that 3 or 4 times to get it right and that’s with non-macro static subjects on the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.
> ...



Reading this and other posts makes me think that a depth of field scale would be every bit as useful as tilt/shift. The scale on my 50 macro is great, surely it would be more so on the 100L?

I am aware that focus ring travel may need to be greater to make a scale truly useful.


----------

