# What can tilt-shift lenses do that post-production cannot?



## dirtcastle (May 10, 2012)

I'm debating the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L -vs- the 17mm TS-E f/4 L. What I'm looking for is the least possible distortion, but I'm also willing to spend a lot of time in post editing. I don't need it perfect SOOC. But I also don't want to spend 30 minutes on each and every image.

Tell me something I can do with the the 17mm TS-E, that I can't do with the 14mm + software.

If you've got any 17mm TS-E images showing results unique to that lens, it would be super appreciated.


----------



## briansquibb (May 10, 2012)

Apart from the converging parallels the TSE gives the ability to move the focus plane such that, say, it is 45degrees from the vertical, allowing you to take an in focus picture with almost unlimited DOF whilst being wide open

Also as a prime wa, the 17 and 24 TS-E are very very sharp


----------



## Random Orbits (May 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Apart from the converging parallels the TSE gives the ability to move the focus plane such that, say, it is 45degrees from the vertical, allowing you to take an in focus picture with almost unlimited DOF whilst being wide open
> 
> Also as a prime wa, the 17 and 24 TS-E are very very sharp



+1. The more you have to correct for buildings "falling over," the more you source data you lose from having to stretch a portion of your source file. The shift function can eliminate or minimize that effect and can help maximize the number of pixels you have on your "subject." With a normal lens, you might have to change the angle to keep the subject vertical lines vertical, which might give you too much background/foreground that has to be cropped out.

Tilting the focal plane is not something that can be done in PP. You can't make an OOF area more in focus. Let's say you take a picture of a deck or sidewalk from where you are on the ground to the horizon. A regular lens will have a portion of it OOF closest to the camera because of its DOF even if shooting at f/11 or smaller. With a TS lens, you can shift the focal plane so that it is parallel to the deck/sidewalk and still shoot at f/4 (max aperture). The sidewalk with lay completely within the focal plane even though the DOF is thin, but the DOF effect can't be seen because there isn't anything on top of the deck/sidewalk.

What it comes down to is how you want to shoot. Tilting the focal plane is hard handheld b/c you'll be trying to hold the camera steady while checking the focal plane magnified in LV, so it'll require a tripod to do it precisely. Shifting can be done handheld pretty easily. If your primary WA shots is of buildings and architecture, go with the TS-E 17mm. If your primary WA shots is of nature, then vertical lines being vertical doesn't matter as much and the 14mm is much more portable (smaller and doesn't require a tripod) and has AF.


----------



## Stu_bert (May 10, 2012)

In addition to the above, you can do simple 3 shot panorama shots without worring about nodal points. Post editing it equates to a 2 x image resolution as you always lose the far edge and some overlap. But I find that's often all I want from the image, and I can also do horiztonal and vertical panos with ease.

I did toy with the 14mm L but picked up the TSE-17mm instead as I don't need the uber-WA so much. The 24 L MK II is slightly better than the TSE-24mm MK II but both are significantly better than my MK I TSE-24mm, so that might be a future acquisition


----------



## recon photography (May 10, 2012)

i don't have any zeiss glass (for eos bodies) but take a look at their new 15mm it looks like it could be a winner, who needs auto focus anyways........ but seriously at 15mm who does need auto focus...


----------



## briansquibb (May 10, 2012)

recon photography said:


> i don't have any zeiss glass (for eos bodies) but take a look at their new 15mm it looks like it could be a winner, who needs auto focus anyways........ but seriously at 15mm who does need auto focus...



I am sure you are right about the Zeiss 15 - but they aren't tilt shift are they?


----------



## NWPhil (May 10, 2012)

(...)The 24 L MK II is slightly better than the TSE-24mm MK II (,,,)[/quote]

Not sure about that - the usual lens reviewers don't agree with you, and testing and charts results agree with the same IF the lens is kept without any tilt and/or shift

One can correct keystone in PP but the software distorts the pixels, and that's very visible
DOF manipulation - I have seen it with lensbaby and with software - none matches what T&S can do, as extending the DOF wide open. Yes, you can simulate the out-of-focus/ narrow DOF, but not bring a larger DOF in with PP
larger panoramics without nodal setup and straight forward stitching


----------



## dougkerr (May 10, 2012)

Hi, Random,



Random Orbits said:


> The more you have to correct for buildings "falling over," the more you source data you lose from having to stretch a portion of your source file. The shift function can eliminate or minimize that effect and can help maximize the number of pixels you have on your "subject." With a normal lens, you might have to change the angle to keep the subject vertical lines vertical, which might give you too much background/foreground that has to be cropped out.
> 
> Tilting the focal plane is not something that can be done in PP. You can't make an OOF area more in focus. Let's say you take a picture of a deck or sidewalk from where you are on the ground to the horizon. A regular lens will have a portion of it OOF closest to the camera because of its DOF even if shooting at f/11 or smaller. With a TS lens, you can shift the focal plane so that it is parallel to the deck/sidewalk and still shoot at f/4 (max aperture). The sidewalk with lay completely within the focal plane even though the DOF is thin, but the DOF effect can't be seen because there isn't anything on top of the deck/sidewalk.


All well said.

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## Stephen Melvin (May 10, 2012)

One more thing that I haven't seen mentioned:
Doing it with the lens allows you to see the results right there. Doing it in PP means risking that your crop won't be quite right, and you'll definitely lose resolution, compared to doing it with the lens.


----------



## kirispupis (May 10, 2012)

The 14L and TS-E 17 are completely different lenses. While others have already mentioned that tilt is not possible through the 14L + PP, you cannot replicate shift strictly through PP. Here is an example.

All of these images were taken with the TS-E 17 and I have not yet processed them. The first was taken unshifted. In order to get all of the building in the shot, I needed to pan up. While the Burj Khalifa does not look too bad because I centered it, you can see that the other buildings' verticals are majorly screwed up.




No shift, panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

You could imagine that with a 14L, the Burj Khalifa would be quite a bit smaller on the shot as 14mm is a lot wider than 17mm.

The following shot is the same building from the same location, but this time shifted. With this shot I have leveled the camera.




Shifted but not panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The obvious difference is the verticals are now correct. Unfortunately the entire building is not within view. In order to have improved on that, I would have had to gain more height, which I was unable to do. Still, you can see that no amount of PP is going to get the second image from the first. You may be able to correct the verticals in the smaller buildings at its sides, but you will not get the same perspective in the Burj Khalifa.

Now you could argue that the two images aren't completely the same, as one of them was taken with the camera level (thus missing the top of the building) while the other was not. Here is the same view taken with the lens fully shifted and the camera panned up slightly to get the top.




Shifted and panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

As you can see between the two images, the Burj Khalifa is about 30% taller on this image than on the first one. The verticals on the smaller buildings are off but not nearly as badly as in the first shot. You are not going to be able to stretch the first shot to match this one without a very noticeable quality drop. Note that a 14L would be even more severe as the Burj Khalifa would be smaller - requiring even more stretching.

I have a number of other shots that demonstrate this but from the above you can see one reason why any serious architectural photographer makes heavy use of TS lenses. The 14L is a very useful lens for extremely wide spaces (I do not own a copy, but have used one) but it has a completely different purposes from the TS-E 17 and the TS-E 24 II.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 10, 2012)

Wow kirispupis, those are some awesome photos. I gotta rent me that lens and give it a try. Now I'll have to go find some interesting buildings to shoot.


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> The 14L and TS-E 17 are completely different lenses. While others have already mentioned that tilt is not possible through the 14L + PP, you cannot replicate shift strictly through PP. Here is an example.
> 
> All of these images were taken with the TS-E 17 and I have not yet processed them. The first was taken unshifted. In order to get all of the building in the shot, I needed to pan up. While the Burj Khalifa does not look too bad because I centered it, you can see that the other buildings' verticals are majorly screwed up.
> 
> ...



Well done and well explained. I want to learn more. Any link/book you recommend to learn tilt shift?
Thx


----------



## akclimber (May 10, 2012)

sanj said:


> Well done and well explained. I want to learn more. Any link/book you recommend to learn tilt shift?
> Thx



Here are a few useful articles:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/intro_tilt_shift_lenses_article.shtml

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses1.htm

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses2.htm

I own a 24 TSE MK II and it is undoubtedly the finest lens I've ever owned/used. Invaluable for landscapes and architecture. The 17 TSE is near the top of my "gotta have one" list as well.

Cheers!


----------



## ontarian (May 10, 2012)

Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385

Its built much more solid and compact than the modern TS lenses as well. -Ed


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2012)

ontarian said:


> Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385
> 
> Its built much more solid and compact than the modern TS lenses as well. -Ed



The original TS lens looks very nice, but one feature of the current 17mm and 24mm II lenses that I really like is the ability to change the orientation between tilt and shift on the fly, which I assume the original cannot do (perhaps I'm wrong?).


----------



## ontarian (May 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ontarian said:
> 
> 
> > Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385
> ...



You are not wrong (as usual [clarification edit-as usual you are bang on right]). Though not on the fly, It can be done but it requires partially disassembling the lens, something I have not tried myself.


----------



## akclimber (May 10, 2012)

ontarian said:


> Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385
> 
> Its built much more solid and compact than the modern TS lenses as well. -Ed



Very cool adapter!

Have you (or has anybody) done an image quality test of the FD TSE vs the EF MK II TSE? The IQ of the MK II is outstanding.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ontarian said:
> 
> 
> > Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385
> ...



While it does look like you can save quite a bit, it looks like it's still ~$900+ for the 35mm TS in FD. ~$1K savings with the conversion kit is still pretty great. They only have them in 35mm though, so if you need the super-wide of 17mm, or even wide at 24mm you're out of luck. Still, undoubtedly a great and cheap(er) way to get into the TS world!


----------



## iaind (May 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ontarian said:
> 
> 
> > Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385
> ...



MkII can rotate angle of tilt and shift. MkI is fixed


----------



## ontarian (May 10, 2012)

akclimber said:


> ontarian said:
> 
> 
> > Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385
> ...



Thanks, I really should find a way to do that, unfortunately I sold my EF MkII TSE 24 3.5 after the TS 35 took its place in my shooting kit.


----------



## ontarian (May 10, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ontarian said:
> ...



I have purchased 3 TS 35mm 2.8 lenses and paid 350, 500 and 400 dollars for them. keh.com is often a good place to look for this lens.


----------



## akclimber (May 10, 2012)

ontarian said:


> akclimber said:
> 
> 
> > ontarian said:
> ...



Nice that the FD lens is f/2.8 as well. Actually, pretty tempting since I'm doing more and more night/dusk/dawn landscape stuff. Hmmmm. Have you posted any image samples anywhere?


----------



## ontarian (May 10, 2012)

I really should post more sample images taken with this lens, I've been kind of busy working on other adapters and playing with other lenses I'm working on making conversion kits for 


IMG_4959.jpg by Ontarian, on Flickr

Other adapters I sell include
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170785828179?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1681wt_1385
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180871581032?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1948wt_1385
and
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180855493584?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

I'd try to dig some up from my flickr photostream but I'm just out the door on a family errand right now.


----------



## NWPhil (May 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ontarian said:
> 
> 
> > Save yourself some serious coin and get the original Canon TS lens and make it EF using my edmika TS/FD-EOS kit. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170784162985?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1049wt_1385
> ...



you are right - only the version 2 of the 17 and 24mm can do that.
However, and I have done it because there is a step-by-step tutorial, the 90mm can be re-aligned to have the tilt and shift in the same axis - it's reversible btw


----------



## briansquibb (May 10, 2012)

I have the TSE-24 which gets a fair bit of use as I also use it as a 24mm wa


----------



## Radiating (May 10, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> I'm debating the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L -vs- the 17mm TS-E f/4 L. What I'm looking for is the least possible distortion, but I'm also willing to spend a lot of time in post editing. I don't need it perfect SOOC. But I also don't want to spend 30 minutes on each and every image.
> 
> Tell me something I can do with the the 17mm TS-E, that I can't do with the 14mm + software.
> 
> If you've got any 17mm TS-E images showing results unique to that lense, it would be super appreciated.



This questions frequently comes up and is rarely answered properly.

The simple answer is that the 17mm TS-E allows you to reduce the depth of field so that it looks like you're shooting with the equivalent of a 17mm f/0.35 lens. Yes that's 0.35 - 3 stops faster than f/1.4. In other words it allows 5 stops shallower DOF than a f/2.8 lens.

Furthermore if you're shooting a situation which requires very slow apertures it allows you to maintain fast apertures with the same depth of field. The net effect is that when you're shooting at f/16 with the 14mm you'll be shooting at f/5.6 with the 17mm TS-e, which lets you use the sweet spot of the lens and reduce diffraction. The end result is up to 70% more resolution. Finally the distortion effects of a tilt shift lens are higher quality than what you can do in post processing by a noticable margin. You also can do a lot of special effects, AND to top it all off the 17mm TS-E is compatible with telecovnerters which means you get both a 17mm 24mm and 35mm lens.

So:

Q: what can tilt shift lenses do that post production cannot?

A: They can appear to have 5 times faster aperture, twice the resolution, can do special effects and you get 3 top quality lenses when combined with telecoverters.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (May 10, 2012)

The new tse lenses are incredibly versatile. To me the mf is no downside. These lenses require careful planning and a bit getting used to it. Once you became friend with such a lense you can't help it but love it. And iq is beyond the slightest doubt. Pp is of minor importance and thus the loss negligible. Well done, Canon!


----------



## pdirestajr (May 10, 2012)

Product photography would be another good use of a tilt-shift. Sometimes it is near impossible to get the whole product in focus with standard lenses.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 10, 2012)

ontarian said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ah, never really shopped at keh.com, although have heard of it. I was only going off of the Ebay price. For ~$400 + conversion kit (~$550 total) I'm very interested. Doesn't seem to be any up on Keh.com right now though :\


----------



## Stu_bert (May 10, 2012)

NWPhil said:


> (...)The 24 L MK II is slightly better than the TSE-24mm MK II (,,,)
> 
> Not sure about that - the usual lens reviewers don't agree with you, and testing and charts results agree with the same IF the lens is kept without any tilt and/or shift



Oops, senior moment.. stand corrected, thank you - TSE24mm MK II is indeed sharper than 24mm L MK II & TSE-24mm MK 1 (EF) - no idea on FD.... Sorry.


----------



## akclimber (May 10, 2012)

ontarian said:


> I really should post more sample images taken with this lens, I've been kind of busy working on other adapters and playing with other lenses I'm working on making conversion kits for
> 
> 
> IMG_4959.jpg by Ontarian, on Flickr
> ...




Yowza, that's a lot of gear! I did find some very positive reviews on the FD TSE. I may just keep my eyes open and if I can find a bargain on one you'll have a customer 

Cheers and good luck with your adapter biz!


----------



## dirtcastle (May 10, 2012)

I really appreciate all these helpful posts, even Ontarian for hijacking and plugging his gear (just messing with you buddy). ;-) 

The 14mm looks great, but in this focal range, I want full control over all types of distortion. Plus, I also feel like the 17mm TS-E is gonna be a better value for giving me so many variables to play with, beyond aperture. I definitely want a lens that can make me some money on the architectural/interiors scene. I'm hoping the 17mm TS-E will force me to step up my "pro" game.

The ability to add a teleconverter to the 17mm TS-E is the deal-winner for me. I've also considered the 45mm TS-E f/2.8, but a 35mm equivalent is close enough!

Thanks again, y'all!


----------



## kirispupis (May 11, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> I really appreciate all these helpful posts, even Ontarian for hijacking and plugging his gear (just messing with you buddy). ;-)
> 
> The 14mm looks great, but in this focal range, I want full control over all types of distortion. Plus, I also feel like the 17mm TS-E is gonna be a better value for giving me so many variables to play with, beyond aperture. I definitely want a lens that can make me some money on the architectural/interiors scene. I'm hoping the 17mm TS-E will force me to step up my "pro" game.
> 
> ...



If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.

- You lose a lot more quality with a 2x converter than a 1.4x
- The 24 is sharper than the 17 to start out with
- The 17 has serious flare issues (no surprise given the front of the lens). The 24 handles flare very well.
- The 24 can take filters, the 17 cannot (or at least cannot easily...)
- The do not have to worry as much about the front of the lens and don't have the huge lens cap to carry around


----------



## dirtcastle (May 11, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.
> 
> - You lose a lot more quality with a 2x converter than a 1.4x
> - The 24 is sharper than the 17 to start out with
> ...



Those are all important considerations. 

My concern, vis-a-vis "17mm vs 24mm", is that I will lose the wide end of the focal range (between 17mm and 24mm). It seems like a lot of the potential work I might see for this lens is with interiors. And it would seem like 24mm is going to be too tight for kitchens, entryways, master bathrooms, etc.

The 35mm equivalent is really just a "bonus" mostly, not as crucial as I might have suggested with my comment. My biggest concern is not being covered on the wide end. I can always crop a 17mm shot down to 24mm, and so on.

If I were shooting primarily outdoor shots with plenty of distance, then the 24mm would be my choice. But for the price tag, the versatility of the 17mm seems more practical for me. Maybe if there was a reverse teleconverter... then the 24mm would look a lot more practical. ;-)


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 11, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.
> ...



17mm vs 24mm in terms of field of view reminds me of when I recently rented the 14mm. Holy wide angle batman! 17mm is a bit less wide, but it's still going to be a huge difference compared to the 24mm.

That said, all of the points kirispupis made are pretty accurate, although the lens cap isn't necessarily as big a deal I'd think. At least, as long as you don't lose it, then you're screwed until you can buy a new one.


----------



## kirispupis (May 11, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.
> ...



I do quite a bit of RE photography and IMHO you really need both of them. There will be times you have to deal with flare and the 17 isn't an option. There will be interiors where the 24 is not wide enough. You will have to shoot in the rain (at least I do here in Seattle ) and the 17 is most definitely not the lens you want for that.

I use both lenses very heavily. In general I use the 17 for interiors and the 24 for exteriors, but not always. I find that in very large homes the 24 is more appropriate because you're not trying to make the home larger at that point - you're trying to sell its features. 

Here is an example of what I mean



Sunrise Melody by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

While here is a shot where the 17 was more appropriate



Master Bedroom by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I also use the TS-E 90 occasionally - mainly for shots of the property from the dock if it is a waterfront home. I have at times wished I had a 45 but it is relatively rare. The Canon 45 is not a great lens though and if I had the money I would pick up the Schneider 50 instead.

I think for your standard run of the mill house you can get away with a 17-40 - a TS is overkill, but when you shoot properties that are advertised nationally and make magazine covers, then you need to invest in the proper equipment.

Note that for what it's worth, when I travel I rarely use my 17 (the Burj Khalifa was a 2715 foot exception). My 24, on the other hand, is my most used lens after my 70-200 II.


----------



## agierke (May 11, 2012)

you can effectively increase the angle of view (or coverage) from the 24mm TS so that it can be used in tighter spaces.

simply orient the lens so that the movement becomes a rise/fall and shoot two frames. first frame should be the top most composition of the scene and then second the lower portion of the scene. you then copy and paste the two frames on top of each other, reposition, and erase the overlap. this also works in a vertical orientation though i personally found it much easier to work as a horizontal. a fairly simple work around that increases the usability of an already fantastic lens.

2 immediate benefits to this technique is that you are effectively increasing the field of view without expanding the spacial relationship of the background/foreground (something the 17mmwould certainly increase significantly). second, you are also increasing the resolution of your final image to roughly 1.5x (depending on your execution of the technique) the native camera resolution. 

the only thing you have to be mindful of is that you do encounter a bit of parallax in the upper portion of the composition so overlapping and erasing should be done with care. also, you need to be mindful of the limits of the image circle and not push the rise/fall to its extreme or you will encounter vignetting in the center portion of your final merged composition. i guess another consideration is that you are changing the final aspect ratio away from the 8x12 native full frame format so some additional cropping of the final composition isnt uncommon if a more common output size is required (ie an 8x10).

does this technique negate the need for the 17mm T/S? no...but if you already have the 24mm T/S you may find that you can get by without dropping another 2k.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 11, 2012)

Great point agierke, not something I normally consider since I don't have a TS lens, and doing it all on a standard tripod ballhead & using PS stitch-assist hasn't worked out so well for me up to now.


----------



## agierke (May 11, 2012)

yeah...a geared 3way tripod head will go a long way in facilitating a better result. never tried it without a geared head that was leveled using a separate level. the bubble levels on tripods aren't as reliable as an independent level.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 11, 2012)

You can also eliminate, or at least minimize parallax by using a rail which allows you to keep the lens stationary while effectively the body does the shifting.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 11, 2012)

agierke said:


> you can effectively increase the angle of view (or coverage) from the 24mm TS so that it can be used in tighter spaces.
> 
> simply orient the lens so that the movement becomes a rise/fall and shoot two frames. first frame should be the top most composition of the scene and then second the lower portion of the scene. you then copy and paste the two frames on top of each other, reposition, and erase the overlap. this also works in a vertical orientation though i personally found it much easier to work as a horizontal. a fairly simple work around that increases the usability of an already fantastic lens.
> 
> ...



^^You raise some good points.

I too, find the ultra wide focal range to be less useful, in general. But something about the 17mm gets me excited, and I think it's the prospect of getting ultra-wide shots with more control over distortion/perspective. The 24mm length on both my 16-35mm and 24-105mm are satisfactory for my purposes. They are great. I don't feel like I need to spend $2k to improve my 24mm shots. It's close enough. Obviously, I wouldn't mind having all the 24mms, but my budget isn't unlimited.

The reason I started this thread is that I'm not very enthused about the 16mm length on my 16-35mm. And I think it's the distortion/perspective. Who knows... maybe it's all in my head. But I've seen lots of 17mm TS-E shots that look more "realistic" to me than anything I can get with my 16-35mm. I really enjoy wide-angle photography, but the wide end of my 16-35mm has me wanting more. And so that leaves me with either the 14mm or the 17mm TS-E.


----------



## agierke (May 11, 2012)

if its distortion that you wish to avoid then any TSE lens is the way to go. when properly used, they are designed to minimize disortion. im not sure the 14mm wont suffer from the same distortion you find displeasing in the 16-35mm. i'm not certain as i haven't used the 14mm but i am very aware of the 16-35mm characteristics.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 11, 2012)

agierke said:


> if its distortion that you wish to avoid then any TSE lens is the way to go. when properly used, they are designed to minimize disortion. im not sure the 14mm wont suffer from the same distortion you find displeasing in the 16-35mm. i'm not certain as i haven't used the 14mm but i am very aware of the 16-35mm characteristics.



You will still see distortion in the 14mm. I've tried it, and it's definitely there. It mostly can be corrected with LR's lens correction, but still probably not as great as a good tilt-shift lens like the 17mm or 24mm.


----------



## Actionpix (May 11, 2012)

The only function I use with TS is tilting the focal plane. Making a landscape without passing diffraction limits? Even better, have the heads of flowers in a landscape in focus and lower parts blurrier. Like this: http://static.nationalgeographic.nl/pictures/genjUserPhotoPicture/original/57/35/33/tulpen-84-333557.jpg


----------



## dirtcastle (May 11, 2012)

Actionpix said:


> The only function I use with TS is tilting the focal plane. Making a landscape without passing diffraction limits? Even better, have the heads of flowers in a landscape in focus and lower parts blurrier. Like this: http://static.nationalgeographic.nl/pictures/genjUserPhotoPicture/original/57/35/33/tulpen-84-333557.jpg



That's fantastic, man!... just the sort of unique effect I'm looking for. I'm thinking the same effect could be done with a herd of animals (including people) or anything else that is grouped closely and evenly like that.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > if its distortion that you wish to avoid then any TSE lens is the way to go. when properly used, they are designed to minimize disortion. im not sure the 14mm wont suffer from the same distortion you find displeasing in the 16-35mm. i'm not certain as i haven't used the 14mm but i am very aware of the 16-35mm characteristics.
> ...



Sort of.... Lens correction profiles exist for 14L II, but not for TS-Es. The body doesn't know how much the lens has been tilted, shifted and rotated, and light fall off and distortion increase the larger the adjustments are made from the center position.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > You will still see distortion in the 14mm. I've tried it, and it's definitely there. It mostly can be corrected with LR's lens correction, but still probably not as great as a good tilt-shift lens like the 17mm or 24mm.
> ...



I think the point was that the TS-E will natively produce results better than an LR-corrected shot with the 14mm lens (not about correcting the TS-E shots with LR).


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



Ah, didn't realize that you couldn't really correct (unless you do it manually and correctly) TS-E lenses. But From my understanding I agree with neuro, the TS-E's will likely produce a much better result than even a corrected 14mm.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Sort of.... Lens correction profiles exist for 14L II, but not for TS-Es. The body doesn't know how much the lens has been tilted, shifted and rotated, and light fall off and distortion increase the larger the adjustments are made from the center position.
> ...



I agree that the TS-E would produce better results at zero-settings. At large tilt and shift settings, the image degrades at the edges/corners closest to the edge even after stopping down. I was trying to remark that fixing that type of distortion is difficult because there are no automatic software settings or profiles. Granted, the image is no longer the same as a non-tilt/shifted image, but I'm imagining it could be concern if you're interested in panoramas (i.e. a lateral 360 from a canyon floor or in a city's downtown).

Disclaimer: I have zero experience with panoramas/photo stitching but hope to start sometime this year.


----------



## grahamsz (May 11, 2012)

I'd love one but i'm holding off waiting to see how the samyang 24mm ts looks. I'm very happy with their 14mm lens, and a good tiltshift should be within their skillset.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 6, 2013)

Although this is a very old post, I think it is worth mentioning that the Samyang 24mm Tilt-Shift lens is now available ... finally a reasonably priced TS lens


----------



## crasher8 (May 6, 2013)

IN CAMERA! It's all about getting it as best as can be in camera. Post………go ahead and rely on post, if you like that sort of thing.


----------



## kirispupis (May 6, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> IN CAMERA! It's all about getting it as best as can be in camera. Post………go ahead and rely on post, if you like that sort of thing.



You cannot achieve the same effect that a TS lens can do for you in PP. Depending on the amount of shift there are cases where you can get somewhat close, but a TS lens is the only real solution. For details on why go back to the first page of this thread and see my post with the Burj Khalifa.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> IN CAMERA! It's all about getting it as best as can be in camera. Post………go ahead and rely on post, if you like that sort of thing.



When shooting something like architecture I don't think getting it right in camera is an absolute requirement (fewer shots, while heavily pp'ing thousands of shots of an event is a pita). You can also use focus stacking to get a large dof while keeping the lens at the sharpest aperture, you're most likely on tripod anyway.



kirispupis said:


> You cannot achieve the same effect that a TS lens can do for you in PP. Depending on the amount of shift there are cases where you can get somewhat close, but a TS lens is the only real solution.



+1 - though recent software like the new dxo viewpoint gives much better results than bare lr and fixes horizontal/vertical lines, but it cannot reproduce the main advantage of a ts-lens: If doing it in software you're massively loosing resolution if correcting more than just a bit - and you need to shoot with much more space to avoid clipped parts (see sample processed from low-res source).

But in my recent, limited experience when shooting _for smaller output resolutions and correcting for some angles _software is just fine, even a t/s lens doesn't move your camera so the point of view is often feels a bit unnatural to me.


----------



## Caps18 (May 6, 2013)

You can also do video and see the effect. I think PBS's Frontline television show uses this effect. I've tried it, but it doesn't work quite as good since I have the 17mm and I bet they use the 24mm or 45mm.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 7, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> The 14L and TS-E 17 are completely different lenses. While others have already mentioned that tilt is not possible through the 14L + PP, you cannot replicate shift strictly through PP. Here is an example.
> 
> All of these images were taken with the TS-E 17 and I have not yet processed them. The first was taken unshifted. In order to get all of the building in the shot, I needed to pan up. While the Burj Khalifa does not look too bad because I centered it, you can see that the other buildings' verticals are majorly screwed up.
> 
> ...


Well explained ... well done!


----------



## bycostello (May 7, 2013)

briansquibb said:


> Apart from the converging parallels the TSE gives the ability to move the focus plane such that, say, it is 45degrees from the vertical, allowing you to take an in focus picture with almost unlimited DOF whilst being wide open
> 
> Also as a prime wa, the 17 and 24 TS-E are very very sharp



another +1


----------



## bjd (May 11, 2013)

So I guess one really should use a tripod with TS for optimal results. How would one work as a walkabout lens?
Cheers brian


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2013)

ontarian said:


> I really should post more sample images taken with this lens, I've been kind of busy working on other adapters and playing with other lenses I'm working on making conversion kits for
> 
> 
> IMG_4959.jpg by Ontarian, on Flickr
> ...



I was looking at the super tele's at the bottom and couldn't help but notice... Whats holding them up? There's no shelf.... Like $$$$$ in tele's just floating there...


----------



## Random Orbits (May 11, 2013)

bjd said:


> So I guess one really should use a tripod with TS for optimal results. How would one work as a walkabout lens?
> Cheers brian



It works fine if you don't mind manual focus -- they're also a bit bulkier/heavier than non TS lenses. Shifts can also be done handheld and tilts for miniature effects too. It's when you need to precisely aline the focal plane with live view precisely that tripods are necessary.


----------



## kirispupis (May 11, 2013)

Tilt-shifts can work fine without a tripod. I use the setting on my 5D3 that allows me to see leveling info in the viewfinder by pressing one of the AF buttons. Before I do that I verify focus using Live View. The following shots were taken with a TS hand held.




JSC_2110_HDR.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr




JSC_0562_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr




Siena Gardens by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## privatebydesign (May 11, 2013)

This is an old thread, I know, but it has some misguided information I'd like to address.

First, "shift" is 100% doable without a T/S lens, that is it is easy to get the verticals vertical, but you need to have a lens that is wide enough and you need to crop. So a shifted 24mm lens gives you a cropped field of view of a 17mm lens. That is, set up a shot on a tripod with a 24mm lens shifted, take it off and put a 17mm lens on your camera and a crop will exactly match the 24 image. The only important bit, and the reason for converging verticals, keep the camera level.

Second, you can do lens corrections for off centered T/S images, having said that the 24 and 17 are very well corrected for CA and off center vignetting is comparatively easy to correct with a software filter. Anyway all you need to do to do true corrections is increase your canvas size to allow for the shift used, position the image in the larger canvas to allow for the shift used then apply corrections, then crop back to the image. If you are anal enough you could even make actual lens profiles in the free Adobe Lens Profiler.


----------



## bjd (May 12, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> bjd said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess one really should use a tripod with TS for optimal results. How would one work as a walkabout lens?
> ...





kirispupis said:


> Tilt-shifts can work fine without a tripod. I use the setting on my 5D3 that allows me to see leveling info in the viewfinder by pressing one of the AF buttons. Before I do that I verify focus using Live View. The following shots were taken with a TS hand held.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, great to hear. They're nice shots.
Cheers Brian


----------



## Sporgon (May 12, 2013)

We don't use them at Building Panoramics. We did try, but they just weren't necessary for the way we produce our pictures. 

The digital and computer age I guess. Before that we did use the facility on large format film.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 12, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> Tilt-shifts can work fine without a tripod. I use the setting on my 5D3 that allows me to see leveling info in the viewfinder by pressing one of the AF buttons. Before I do that I verify focus using Live View. The following shots were taken with a TS hand held.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Beautiful shots. 

Please excuse my ignorance, but where is this city located?


----------



## Jens_T (May 12, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Beautiful shots.
> 
> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is this city located?



(I am not the photographer, but might be able to answer that question)
Hello,

the last one is in Siena - the others are located in the Flickr Folder Tuscany / Cinque Terre - both are regions in northern / north-western Italy.

cf http://www.parconazionale5terre.it/?id_lingue=2

Br
Jens


----------



## Quasimodo (May 12, 2013)

Jens_T said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful shots.
> ...



Thanks


----------



## kirispupis (May 12, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Beautiful shots.
> 
> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is this city located?


First one is Riomaggiore, in Cinque Terre.
Second one is Florence.
Third is Siena.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 12, 2013)

kirispupis said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful shots.
> ...



Looks like I have to do some travelling


----------



## Midphase (May 12, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...




It's an awesome part of the world and extremely photography friendly. If you do go, may I suggest this travel group with which I had a great experience: http://nadasitaly.com


----------

