# New Tilt Shift Lenses to be 45mm, 90mm, 135mm [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 8, 2017)

```
We’re told that the new TS-E lenses from Canon will be 45mm, 90mm and 135mm. One of the lenses (we think the 135mm) will be a macro, though we don’t know if it’s a 1:1 macro.</p>
<p><strong>Upcoming Canon Lenses:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS</li>
<li>Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8L</li>
<li>Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8L</li>
<li>Canon TS-E 135mm f/2.8L Macro? (We’re not 100% sure on the speed of the lens and what sort of macro capability it will have)</li>
</ul>
<p>We’re keeping this at [CR2] until we get a confirmation we’re absolutely confident about.</p>

<p>We’re still wondering about the “Made In Malaysia” from the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/unreleased-canon-gear-has-appeared-for-certification/">certification post from a few weeks back</a>, and for the moment we cannot confirm or deny the country of manufacture or if that “Made in Malaysia” even had anything to do with the new tilt-shift lenses.</p>
<p><em><strong>Correction:

</strong>We have <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/clarification-corrections-on-the-upcoming-new-lenses-from-canon-cr2/">written another post that contradicts this one</a> on a couple of points. 1) the TS-E 45mm f/2.8L will likely be a TS-E 50mm f/2.8L Macro, and the TS-E 135mm f/2.8L Macro is likely a TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro.</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2017)

Darn, I want the first three.


----------



## aceflibble (Aug 8, 2017)

That's a weird focal length selection. I suppose the 24mm mark II isn't in need of an update and the 17mm seems to be trucking along alright as it is, so if you're going to revise any of the existing TS-Es the 45mm and 90mm make the most sense. But 135mm? And _macro_? To me a macro tilt-shift implies product work, but 135mm is too long to give neutral perspective. 120mm would be more appropriate for that role, or 100mm. (Though I'd expect they'd feel that was too close to 90mm, unless the 100mm macro was also significantly slower.) And they're not going to pitch it as a portrait lens 'cause the 135mm f/2 is already suffering in sales from recent competition; no company ever kneecaps their own products.

I get the 45 and 90 being remade. I don't get a 135 at all. _At all_. 100 or 120, I'd understand. Or hell, remaking the 17mm. But a 135mm TS-E is nonsensical on par with launching a fifth 70-200 or a fourth 50mm.


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 8, 2017)

I am interested in TS lenses.. lovely....
BUT
the Macro 135mm f2.8L I.S. 
if it is good to edges, it can knock out the Sigma 135 (no I.S.)
this one I have wanted for a while..

if they make it f4...... well... I wont be as interested
and...it better be perfect in every other way...

like 16" 1:1 distance.....
w/ a good I.S. system too...
nice for chasing bugs..

then this will be another portrait lens too...
it needs f2.8 for this .. imo...

I W A N T


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2017)

TommyLee said:


> I am interested in TS lenses.. lovely....
> BUT
> the Macro 135mm f2.8L I.S.
> if it is good to edges, it can knock out the Sigma 135 (no I.S.)
> ...



A TS-E lens is not going to have image stabilization.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Aug 8, 2017)

well, the 45mm and 90mm need red stripes. and 135 is a little long but more working distance for table top product means more dof, kinda what you're often looking for with TS-E, so all good. and maybe used 45mm will drop in price enough for me to pick up one.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 8, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> That's a weird focal length selection. I suppose the 24mm mark II isn't in need of an update and the 17mm seems to be trucking along alright as it is, so if you're going to revise any of the existing TS-Es the 45mm and 90mm make the most sense. But 135mm? And _macro_? To me a macro tilt-shift implies product work, but 135mm is too long to give neutral perspective. 120mm would be more appropriate for that role, or 100mm. (Though I'd expect they'd feel that was too close to 90mm, unless the 100mm macro was also significantly slower.) And they're not going to pitch it as a portrait lens 'cause the 135mm f/2 is already suffering in sales from recent competition; no company ever kneecaps their own products.
> 
> I get the 45 and 90 being remade. I don't get a 135 at all. _At all_. 100 or 120, I'd understand. Or hell, remaking the 17mm. But a 135mm TS-E is nonsensical on par with launching a fifth 70-200 or a fourth 50mm.



or you're not the target market for an esoteric lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 8, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re still wondering about the “Made In Malaysia”..



IMO, it's an EF-M lens in three colors and nada to do with this.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 8, 2017)

Those are the focal lengths I expected, based on the recent patents about a longer focal length Tilt-Shift. I am still wondering about IS. It requires a movable lens group in both movable parts of the lens, so it seems unlikely, since the price would soar.

The 135 is going to be a big seller as is the 45. The existing 90mm is very goo, so there would need to be a compelling reason to upgrade, like macro capability. I sold my TS-E 90 because I did not use it enough, so I'll pass on the new ones as well.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 8, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re still wondering about the “Made In Malaysia”..
> ...


That would make sense. 
So maybe there has been some confusion with those registration numbers.


----------



## Woody (Aug 8, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> IMO, it's an EF-M lens in three colors and nada to do with this.



Canon may surprise us. 

After all, you predicted only 4 new lenses from Canon in 2017.

So far, we already have 2. And if we add the 85 f/1.4 + 3 tilt-shift + EF-M lens (in multicolors), we will have 7 new lenses. That will break the trend you described previously.


----------



## hne (Aug 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> TommyLee said:
> 
> 
> > I am interested in TS lenses.. lovely....
> ...



As Mt Spokane Photography tipped off about in another of the Tilt-Shift threads, there's actually a TS-with-IS patent from Canon:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/05/29/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/05/29/canon-patent-shows-off-what-could-be-the-worlds-first-image-stabilized-tilt
http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/05/patent-canon-tilt-shift-with-image-stabilization/


----------



## aceflibble (Aug 8, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> or you're not the target market for an esoteric lens.


I never claimed to be, nor even made the slightest reference to my own purposes. You'll notice I directly address the sales of such lenses; there's your hint that I'm not talking about my personal uses.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 8, 2017)

Woody said:


> After all, you predicted only 4 new lenses from Canon in 2017.
> 
> So far, we already have 2. And if we add the 85 f/1.4 + 3 tilt-shift + EF-M lens (in multicolors), we will have 7 new lenses. That will break the trend you described previously.



Assuming the three EF-M lenses are color variations on existing lenses (eg an EF-M 15-45 in white) then they don't really count as 'new lenses'


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 8, 2017)

Actually I think a 135mm tilt macro lens would be a smart move particularly for commercial photographers doing table-top food etc.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 8, 2017)

Woody said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, it's an EF-M lens in three colors and nada to do with this.
> ...



yup. it would totally break the photokina trend with canon.

they may surprise us for sure, but the TS-E's aren't going to be made in Malaysia.

In a way, it clarifies the mirrorless full frame, it must be EF - if they are still going nuts to the wall with EF lenses if they had plans of introducing a new mount.

it will also be a little disappointing, because they really do need to spend resources on M lenses but these lenses are so far down the pipeline, it could be a .. may as well release them.

it will certainly affirm once again.. the canon "system".


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> TommyLee said:
> 
> 
> > I am interested in TS lenses.. lovely....
> ...



of course... AFAIK, *not FULLY developed yet*.. not my focus here..
(although it could be interesting .. but autofocus/I.S. is minimum feature).
so
the macro is the one I W A N T
and it needs I.S. .... for my use


----------



## Zeidora (Aug 8, 2017)

IS on a TS-E makes very little sense. TS work is done on tripod, a fortiori in macro.
I'm surprised nobody is complaining about lack of AF on TS-Es. just kidding ...


----------



## bereninga (Aug 8, 2017)

I've never used a tilt-shift lens before. I wonder how affordable these will be.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 8, 2017)

TommyLee said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > TommyLee said:
> ...



why would it? a T/S macro would never be able to be hand held.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2017)

TommyLee said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > TommyLee said:
> ...



The 'Macro' listed is a TS-E, so it won't have IS, it won't have AF either. So apart from those two 'needs' of yours it looks to be the perfect lens for you :


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> TommyLee said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



ok..I see I 'read' 135 ONLY ..
that's me projecting ..I guess.. on what I wanted fron Can the longer macro with I.S. ...
I do know they have patents etc.. but ..I missed the TS part..

///

of course the TS-e 135 would be useful to many (no I.S./no auto) ..
but I want to chase bugs... different need there..

....thanks..... for FINALLY getting me to re read the post..
I saw what 'I wanted to see' .... haha...


later


----------



## Chris O (Aug 8, 2017)

"I don't get a 135 at all. At all. 100 or 120"

135mm is no good but 120 mm, a mere 15 mm difference is?

Clearly Canon are making the 135mm to be clearly differentiated from the 90mm. A rather interesting idea. I would have thought a 35mm TSE would be more popular, but time will tell


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 8, 2017)

*135mm and the tilt tables*

Just put 135mm into my tilt table spreadsheet and I do wonder if it means a new movements mechanism?

For those not familiar with the info see details at

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/using-lens-tilt-on-your-digital-slr/

although for macro I'd be more likely to use an iterative technique for focus like at

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/alternative-focus-technique-for-tilted-lens/

Using the 90 for macro work I often wish for more than 8 degrees tilt - moving this to 135mm make me very curious as to the mechanics


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: 135mm and the tilt tables*



keithcooper said:


> Just put 135mm into my tilt table spreadsheet and I do wonder if it means a new movements mechanism?
> 
> For those not familiar with the info see details at
> 
> ...



Ditto, I've been pointing out for years here that deep mirror boxes don't play well with large tilt angles, compound that with macro distance J point distances and, well, let's wait and see......


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Darn, I want the first three.



Intrigued by the last one ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2017)

RGF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Darn, I want the first three.
> ...



Yes, annoyingly so am I!

I do have a use for the first three, though if the 90 has a long mfd and the 135 is interesting enough I could see me getting that instead. I do some repetitive product work the size of a coffee mug and have held off getting a TS-E 90 so far and used the 100 L macro, if a TS-E 135 macro could replace both then it might make sense. I use the 100 L for headshots too and was thinking the 85 f1.4 would be nicer for that.

I can't wait for the 5DS/R MkII and four way shift stitched panos from the TS-E45, one thing I will say for Canon, they are one of the most innovative camera companies out there!


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yes the 45mm looks very tempting for that ! The 24 mm is just too wide for me generally, and even 35 is often too wide for my style of panoramic. Also you get so much in genuine focus with a normal 24, whereas being able to tilt a 45...... hmmmmm.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> A TS-E lens is not going to have image stabilization.



Or autofocus. 

If you do not need tilt or shift -- if you are just buying the T/S lens to use as a really sharp prime, I'd buy the Sigma every time because good-but-not-great AF tends to mop the floor with lenses that have no AF, and the likelihood anything demonstrably outresolves that Sigma 135 Art for a similar price are effectively zero.

- A


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 8, 2017)

To all that say a TS-E macro doesn't make sense as a handheld lens, remember the MP-E 65mm? A totally manual lens aside from aperture control? I, as well as many others, "run and gun" with this lens for great results. Absolutely no reason that you could not do this with a TS-E.

Set the lens how you want, go shoot. I'd set it so that I could use a lower aperture at angle, thereby meaning I'd need less flash. This would also allow you to get a lot more bug in focus than with a standard plane. Just thinking about this gets me giddy.

I'm still begging that the 135mm have MT-24EX support.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2017)

Drainpipe said:


> I'm still begging that the 135mm have MT-24EX support.



Even if it doesn't accept a the mount ring (with or without a Macrolite adapter), you could always mount the twin heads on a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets (or similar). I use that setup frequently with both the 100L and MP-E 65.


----------



## dafrank (Aug 9, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> That's a weird focal length selection. I suppose the 24mm mark II isn't in need of an update and the 17mm seems to be trucking along alright as it is, so if you're going to revise any of the existing TS-Es the 45mm and 90mm make the most sense. But 135mm? And _macro_? To me a macro tilt-shift implies product work, but 135mm is too long to give neutral perspective. 120mm would be more appropriate for that role, or 100mm. (Though I'd expect they'd feel that was too close to 90mm, unless the 100mm macro was also significantly slower.) And they're not going to pitch it as a portrait lens 'cause the 135mm f/2 is already suffering in sales from recent competition; no company ever kneecaps their own products.
> 
> I get the 45 and 90 being remade. I don't get a 135 at all. _At all_. 100 or 120, I'd understand. Or hell, remaking the 17mm. But a 135mm TS-E is nonsensical on par with launching a fifth 70-200 or a fourth 50mm.



Well, as a professional product (and people and architecture) photographer for about 40 years (and still very busy working), I can tell you that - surprise - a 135mm TS-E lens would probably offer the most "natural" perspective of any other possible focal length.

Most people, because of the rules of thumb about shooting head and shoulder shots of people, mistakenly think that 135mm, for a "full frame" camera, is too long to look natural. Not true for products at all. A great example is the automobile, a product I've shot literally thousands of times for dozens of advertising and corporate clients. Most inexperienced photographers try to shoot cars with a wide angle, or perhaps a"normal" lens, feeling that the exaggerated perspective making the nearest end of the car to the camera appear to "dominate" the image, is attractive. Others try to use very long lenses taken from a very low and just off the dead center axis to create a very sexy in-your-face front or rear "7/8" image.

However, if you were to try make the image look the most natural, a 135mm lens does the best job. At 3/4 angles (the most common product view), you may observe that the apparent size of the front wheels compared to the rears are much closer to, but not exactly the same as, the amount in relation to one another that you would imagine them to be when observing the vehicle with your eyes alone. This is because you really don't see images like a camera does; one doesn't see all of an image at once - instead you "scan" the image in parts and then your brain builds a kind of composite image of the scene. When you see each part of an image separately, your brain naturally then tries to put size difference of disparate parts of an image into a more harmonious relationship in the "composited" image, no matter how the photographic perspective actually might look from your viewing distance to your subject.

If the wheels looked to be the same size, as they would with, let's say a 300mm lens, then it would look interesting but still, subconsciously, look jarringly inaccurate. Charming perhaps, but not "natural." With even a 100mm lens, and especially with wider ones than that, the differences in the apparent size of the front compared to the back wheels would be so great as to look quite odd after first noticing them. The 135 represents the "golden mean."

What this boils down to is that the 135 focal length on a full frame sensor camera does the best job of making different parts of any product of moderate size, in depth and otherwise, look like they "belong together" with their other interconnected parts. As with cars, just about any product bigger than a grapefruit looks more "natural" when shot with a 135mm-150mm lens. I already have the excellent 90mm TS-E lens. However, if Canon makes a TS-E 135mm lens, I'll jump at the chance to buy one.


----------



## Drainpipe (Aug 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Drainpipe said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still begging that the 135mm have MT-24EX support.
> ...



Ah that's very true. I'm thinking of the MP-E 65 where the lens moves in and out. Probably won't have to worry about that on a 135mm


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 9, 2017)

dafrank said:


> Most people, because of the rules of thumb about shooting head and shoulder shots of people, mistakenly think that 135mm, for a "full frame" camera, is too long to look natural. Not true for products at all....



Can I just thank you for your excellent informed commentary on this. I've learnt something, and I'm sure others have too. This is exactly why I come here.


----------



## dafrank (Aug 9, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> dafrank,
> 
> What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
> Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached?



I never said anything was wrong with it. What I said was that there was a "rule of thumb" for 35mm film or "full frame" camera sensor cameras, and that there is one, is incontrovertible. For many decades - nearly a century, that rule of thumb was that portraits were best shot with lens focal lengths between about 80mm to 110mm, with 85mm, 90mm and 105mm lenses being the most recommended ones. 

As for myself, I often shoot portraits with lens focal lengths up to about 180mm and sometimes, outdoors, even much longer. But, as is so often the case, rules are made to be broken and they are only best applied under certain circumstances. 

After shooting thousands of professional portraits, I can give you some helpful information for you to use or discard as you wish.

When you shoot a person's head, their physical characteristics and lens focal length work together to make them look anywhere between good and odd.

For instance, when a person has even slightly bigger than usual ears, or if they "stick out" from the side of their heads a little more than average, lens focal length and posing angles become interconnected and determine whether the person can look their best or not. If that person with unfortunate ears (a very big portion of the population) poses with both ears at least somewhat visible, a lens longer than about 110mm starts to make that person look unfortunate. Their ear size begins to look really too big compared to the rest of their features. Even though this is a sort of an illusion, as their ears really are close to that size compared to their other features, nonetheless they still appear way less than their best. This is easily explained by perspective. Using a "too short" lens for this angle of view causes the foreground to appear bigger than the background - the simple understanding of the effects of perspective dictated by distance from the subject. In such a case, the person's close features, primarily the nose, will look way too prominent, but the ears, being in the "background" will shrink in apparent size compared to the rest of the features of the person's head. The rule-of-thumb focal length ranges, being longer, but not excessively so, will more equalize the ear to nose size relationship, while longer focal length lenses will, by even more equalizing that size relationship, make those with more prominent ears look bad. However, if you picture a person's face much more to the profile, or if their hair covers their ears, or if they have smaller and closer set ears, or you keep their ears in very dark shadow, one may use much longer focal length lenses without fear of making the subject's features look in any way disproportionate.

There is wisdom in the "rule of thumb", but one must also understand its purpose and when best to apply it to your particular situation. I hope this clears things up for you.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 9, 2017)

Thank you very much for the clarification, Sir! Well explained and true to my humble experience.



dafrank said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > dafrank,
> ...


----------



## hne (Aug 10, 2017)

Thank you so much! Post like this of yours' are pure gold.
I was already using some similar techniques, but the shadow or hair hiding the ear to be able to use a longer focal length to minimize the nose is a great new technique that I will definitely try out in the coming weeks.



dafrank said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > dafrank,
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles. ... (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).



My Outlook profile pic was shot with a 1D X and 135/2L, three speedlites (two in softboxes for key and fill, one gridded on a boom for a hair light), and PCB Einstein lighting the backdrop. I held the remote trigger in my hand. 

Does that make me weird?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles. ... (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).
> ...



Oh yes indeed!


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



Or perhaps slightly vain - the 135 mm being so flattering


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles. ... (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).
> ...



Weird? Yes. I would also like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles. ... (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).
> ...


Nope! Just a photo gear geek. 
And someone who likes to take quality portraits. 8)

By the way, you didn't tell us anything about the bg equipment.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 11, 2017)

Canon 1DX is an excellent camera for taking selfies. Full stop. What is your favourite selfie stick brand and model? 8) 



neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles. ... (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Canon 1DX is an excellent camera for taking selfies. Full stop. What is your favourite selfie stick brand and model? 8)



My selfie stick is a Really Right Stuff MC-34 carbon fiber monopod with a RRS MH-02 Pro tilt head.


----------



## hne (Aug 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It becomes extremely clear at work, where some people use the webcams on their laptops to take pics for their Outlook profiles. ... (and my Outlook profile just lacks a picture entirely, actually).
> ...



Not at all, unless I'm totally wacko.

I took issue with my colleagues substandard profile pictures to the degree I offered free headshots during lunch time (limit of max 20 people). Four bags full of photographic equipment. Some people obviously thought I was crazy, but I've now got another dozen colleagues with quite acceptable profile pictures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2017)

hne said:


> I took issue with my colleagues substandard profile pictures to the degree I offered free headshots during lunch time (limit of max 20 people). Four bags full of photographic equipment. Some people obviously thought I was crazy, but I've now got another dozen colleagues with quite acceptable profile pictures.



Ha...I did just the same! Set up in a conference room at work (pictured below). I subsequently did the same thing for colleagues in Switzerland, which was a challenge since I had to pack everything I'd need. I ended up taking 4 speedlites, a small softbox (Lastolite Ezybox Speedlite), Justin clamps, a small 5x7' backdrop and a few spring clamps, and using free-standing dry erase boards as stands for the lights and backdrop.

As a nod in the general direction of this topic, I did have two TS-E lenses on the trip (although I didn't use them for the photoshoot).


----------



## martinandersen (Jan 14, 2018)

SecureGSM said:


> dafrank,
> 
> What is wrong with shooting head and shoulders portraits with 135mm lens?
> Is the issue you are referring to is evident in the photo attached?



I am debating with myself if the new ts-e 90mm will be to long for my purpose, so I am looking a bit into "compressed perspective" generally.

Head and shoulders in this portrait is totally fine. But when when one looks at the hands I would say they problem of compressed perspective of the 135mm focal length hits in. I suppose its subjective but to me the hand and its fingers closest to the lens looks very small, and the other hand almost looks like a foot compared to the front hand. To me this looks like the result of the diagonal position of the crossed arms in the compressed perspective plane of the 135mm in the otherwise perfect portrait.

best Martin


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2018)

martinandersen said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > dafrank,
> ...



That's bad posing and nothing to do with the difference between the shot taken with a 90mm vs 135mm.


----------



## martinandersen (Jan 14, 2018)

That's bad posing and nothing to do with the difference between the shot taken with a 90mm vs 135mm.
[/quote]

I think it is partly related to focal length, taken with a 20mm you could have made the front hand huge 
Best Martin


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2018)

martinandersen said:


> That's bad posing and nothing to do with the difference between the shot taken with a 90mm vs 135mm.



I think it is partly related to focal length, taken with a 20mm you could have made the front hand huge 
Best Martin
[/quote]

I don't, the difference in perspective between a 90mm and 135mm when shot for the same framing isn't going to come close to overcoming the poor posing. Hands, especially for men, are very difficult to pose naturally and yet when done well can tell every bit as much of a story as the face.


----------



## martinandersen (Jan 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't, the difference in perspective between a 90mm and 135mm when shot for the same framing isn't going to come close to overcoming the poor posing. Hands, especially for men, are very difficult to pose naturally and yet when done well can tell every bit as much of a story as the face.



You might be right, I will give it a try taking a few shots of diagonal crossed arms and hands in 90mm and 135mm. Though I am not looking at the story of the pose, just the "compression" of perspective.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 14, 2018)

It looks like most of those were shot from about the same distance, so there is not so much difference of perspective, which changes mostly with subject distance, not focal length. If you take the same shot from the same place with a wide angle lens and with a telephoto and then crop the former to fit, you will get virtually the same perspective, within the limits of the lenses' distortion and such.


----------



## martinandersen (Jan 14, 2018)

stevelee said:


> It looks like most of those were shot from about the same distance, so there is not so much difference of perspective, which changes mostly with subject distance, not focal length. If you take the same shot from the same place with a wide angle lens and with a telephoto and then crop the former to fit, you will get virtually the same perspective, within the limits of the lenses' distortion and such.



I suppose the point in this is if you want to frame the subject identically with different focal lengths you will have to move the camera (and thereby changing the perspective). Personally I see a lot of difference in "compression of perspective" here, sure not dramatic in-between 50mm and 150mm (but its there) and I suppose it would have been more if the portrait had been diagonal in pose.


----------



## martinandersen (Jan 14, 2018)

Here perhaps a more interesting diagonal subject than hands. The compression of perspective, and to what degree it is an asset for a motif, is of course transitional. And I totally get that for products such as cars a 135mm and above might make sense (as dafrank finely described earlier in this thread). At 200mm here i suppose it is obviously not okay what happens with the compression. Whether or not it is okay at 135mm I suppose is a matter of taste


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2018)

You are showing examples from 20mm-200mm and 24mm-200mm we all know that. My point was between the 100mm and 135mm examples the differences are barely discernible and on any single shot it is impossible to tell one from another.


----------



## wynknapp (Jan 25, 2018)

Is there any information on when the new 90mm ts-e lens will be available?


----------



## mariuspavel (Jan 27, 2018)

All of them are best lenses. But I don't know many people who uses them


----------

