Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L

[Scuff]

For those of you who have an interest, here are a couple of comparison shots using the 24mm TS-E lens. The location was Merrow Church, near Guildford. UK.

The first is an uncorrected shot taken from about 2ft off the ground. Whilst it is quite useable, there is a slight lean in the structures as the camera is pointed up.

http://www.gtmedia.com/photos/MerrowChurchNormal.jpg


This is shot from the same position, but with the lens shifted only 2mm. The verticals are corrected.

http://www.gtmedia.com/photos/MerrowChurchShifted.jpg

Whilst you could do this in photoshop, the editing would mean that you would have to crop the picture, there would also be some degradation as the pixels are stretched and compressed.

[malla1962]

Looks good.:D

[In2Photos]

Nice comparison. I am going to add this to the lens image archive.

[StealthLude]

Ill take my chances with photoshop... Its not very hard to fix verticals in PS.

[Lester Wareham]

Whilst you could do this in photoshop, the editing would mean that you would have to crop the picture, there would also be some degradation as the pixels are stretched and compressed.

This is very true. I did some tests and found the MTF 50% value of a lens was reduced by 10-20% by using enough barrel distortion correction to correct for a EF 17-40/f4L at 17mm.

This loss of fine detail is very significant and corresponds to the difference between a very good lens and a poor one.

[Lord_Malone]

Nice! I'd love to have this lens in my kit bag. ;)

[sboerup]

Thought I'd share some of a new favorite lens. If you want to get serious about architecture, this lens is indispensable. Any serious architecture photographer will tell you the same, there is no comparison with photoshop. Sorry.

This lens is just amazing, once you get the hang of it, its THE architecture/interior lens you will pick up. Period.

http://www.sboerup.com/clients/presentation/architecture/medium/_MG_1069-013.jpg

http://www.sboerup.com/clients/presentation/architecture/medium/_MG_1039-011.jpg

2 Shots stitched together, 22mp total.
http://www.sboerup.com/clients/presentation/architecture/medium/_MG_0792-010.jpg

http://www.sboerup.com/clients/presentation/architecture/medium/Stairs-005.jpg

[lmitch6]

Thanks a million for creating this thread. The 24 TS-E is my next lens (hopefully soon), and it's good to see some images from it. Thanks again!

[Wilt]

Curse you! I have an Olympus 24mm Perspective Control lens for my Oly 35mm film system. I have a mount adapter that permits me to use my Oly lenses (many fast lenses) on my 20D; the FOV of 24mm on my 20D is frustrating after having used the same lens on film SLR. Curse you for pointing out the inadequacy of using APS-C and the need for 2x body cost in a 5D in order to get the proper FOV with that lens! ;)

[OiPaz]

Hi!
I was suggested to add the following picture to the 24 TS-E archive, and this seems to be the right thread. So, here it is: Colosseum at Dawn, f/8, ISO 100, 13 seconds with an EOS-1D Mark II N.

[Lester Wareham]

Lovely quality of light OiPaz, great shot.

[SoaringUSAEagle]

Here is the last image my 24mm TSE w/ circular polarizer saw before I sold it. I hand held my 72mm polarizer in front of the lens... I had to rig it lol.

http://jeffreyallred.com/potn/dtc.jpg

[Steve Parr]

A potentially dumb question here:

When you shift the lens those two millimeters to correct the verticals, is it evident when you look through the viewfinder? I would think it would be, but just thought I'd ask...

[OiPaz]

great shot
Thanks! By the way, looking at the title of this thread, I remember that few days after buying the lens I posted a comparison between a shifted shot and a not-shifted one (of the same subject). You can see it here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=341694

[Glenn NK]

A potentially dumb question here:

When you shift the lens those two millimeters to correct the verticals, is it evident when you look through the viewfinder? I would think it would be, but just thought I'd ask...

Should be as one is looking through the lens. We often tend to forget this; if you've ever used a rangefinder camera (I have), the difference in what you see compared to an (D)SLR is startling.

I'm thankful for (D)SLR cameras.

No dumb questions, only dumb replies - hope mine wasn't.

[OiPaz]

When you shift the lens those two millimeters to correct the verticals, is it evident when you look through the viewfinder?
What happens when you shift the lens is that the image in the viewfinder moves, so the answer is yes, it is evident. You aim the camera at a direction but what you see in the viewfinder is another direction (you may use this to correct the verticals, but not necessarily and not only).

[jacobsen1]

Anyone care to share some better sample of the corners of some shifted images?
I've heard a lot of bad things about them, but I'm planning on using this for shifted panos (stopped down on a tripod) so I'd love to see some examples...

[Lester Wareham]

Anyone care to share some better sample of the corners of some shifted images?
I've heard a lot of bad things about them, but I'm planning on using this for shifted panos (stopped down on a tripod) so I'd love to see some examples...

Yes, I am curious about the corners at max shift. Canon show their MTF estimate but only for the FF image circle on no shift. Never seen any shifted test results.

[mrmarklin]

Thanks for this thread. I have the lens, but have never used it to its full potential. Great examples of what it can be used for.

[OiPaz]

I am curious about the corners at max shift.
Unfortunately I cannot help: I own the lens but my camera has a crop factor of 1.25x that makes impossible to reach the "true" borders of the image projected by the 24mm TS-E.

[blu82]

Yes, I am curious about the corners at max shift. Canon show their MTF estimate but only for the FF image circle on no shift. Never seen any shifted test results.

I've had some very bad image corner detail at maximum shift. The image seems to stretch, and blur along an imaginary line from the center to the corner concerned.

[Lester Wareham]

I've had some very bad image corner detail at maximum shift. The image seems to stretch, and blur along an imaginary line from the center to the corner concerned.

Right, is that like AoV 'distortion' you get with an ultra wide angle lens,

I was just thinking a 24mm shift lens on 35mm format is effectively a medium format ultra wide and the shift means you move to the edge of the frame and see the AoV distortion.

Can you comment on sharpness and CA at max shift?

It would be interesting to see two 100% crops at the same f-stop one with shift and one without.

[OL9245]

I've had some very bad image corner detail at maximum shift. The image seems to stretch, and blur along an imaginary line from the center to the corner concerned.
plus there is a huge purple fringe at max shift. For the job I am doing, I have to use a shift lens. The 24 TSE is just good enough to do the job, but in any point I would quilify it as a great lens. Will try to post 100% crops later there so you judge by yourself. I was told that the formula of the lens had not changed for ages. (I wonder if Canon had started to use computers to calculate their lenses at this time :( ). Its a shame the have never released a TSE II line, especially the 28mm.

[Scuff]

Here is an example from today at Salisbury Cathedral.

This image was shot with the TS-E 24 without any shift. The camera was pointed upwards to include the building. You can see that there is a noticeable amount of 'lean'

242756

On this corrected shot, the lens was shifted to correct the verticals. A light reading was taken with the lens unshifted. The camera was set on manual and then the lens shifted, I gave it an extra 1/2 stop as well.

242757

A Hoya pro circular polarizer was fitted, which was compensated for when I took the first light reading.

[timnosenzo]

Here is an example from today at Salisbury Cathedral.


Really a remarkable difference. I've been considering one of these lenses for an upcoming trip to Italy this summer. How difficult are they to use? Would I want to get it quite a bit before hand so I could get some practice under my belt?

[Scuff]

Really a remarkable difference. I've been considering one of these lenses for an upcoming trip to Italy this summer. How difficult are they to use? Would I want to get it quite a bit before hand so I could get some practice under my belt?

You will need a bit of practice to get the best out of these TS-E's. I have the advantage of having used large format cameras extensively, so I found it fairly easy to get into.

My best advise is to be methodical, take your time, and take plenty of images with different settings to learn how to get the best from the lenses. It is worth the effort though, and quite fascinating.

[MaDProFF]

I would like one of these lenses as well, but for me I would prefer it was wider

[jacobsen1]

Here is an example from today at Salisbury Cathedral.


nice example but IMHO you went a bit too far. The human eye expects to see some lean anyway, so perfectly straight looks a bit off...

I would like one of these lenses as well, but for me I would prefer it was wider
you can stitch images from these lenses VERY EASILY giving you some very wide vantages... IE 3 images side by each from the 45mm is closer to a single 24mm image. I'll be testing my 24mm TS-E this way versus my 17-40 this weekend, so hopefully I can show examples next week. This also gives you enormous files.

[Wilt]

The TSE lenses are manual focus. You should do your metering with an unshifted/untilted lens, then set the reading into a Manual mode camera with set aperture and shutter speed, then shift/tilt the lens for the exposure.

[Wilt]

Here is an interesting article with photos showing the TSE performance at the edges, and also the poor job of Photoshop vs. the TSE lens for eliminating the 'falling over' buildings

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html

[Scuff]

nice example but IMHO you went a bit too far. The human eye expects to see some lean anyway, so perfectly straight looks a bit off...


you can stitch images from these lenses VERY EASILY giving you some very wide vantages... IE 3 images side by each from the 45mm is closer to a single 24mm image. I'll be testing my 24mm TS-E this way versus my 17-40 this weekend, so hopefully I can show examples next week. This also gives you enormous files.

Thanks for your comments. If you look carefully you will see that there is a very slight tilt;)

[ipschoser1]

I really wish someone would make a 10mm tilt shift lens for us APS-C users. I'd buy one in a second!

[Wilt]

I really wish someone would make a 10mm tilt shift lens for us APS-C users. I'd buy one in a second!

I would be very happy with a 15mm TSE EFS lens...same FOV as using 24mmTSE on 135 format film camera or a 75mm lens on a 4x5 camera with movements

[dFreezy]

Thanks for sharing guys, I really am interested in getting a budget T/S lens (ie Hartblei) since I can't afford any of the Canon versions

[jacobsen1]

Thanks for your comments. If you look carefully you will see that there is a very slight tilt;)
yeah, I know, but my point was it's not enough to seem real... maybe you could PS some back in. :lol: (kidding)
I really wish someone would make a 10mm tilt shift lens for us APS-C users. I'd buy one in a second!
these are such a niche lens they'll just tell you to buy a 5D. After all they're only ~$2k which is really only a ~$1k upgrade, or the same as a TS-E....

[roaming oregon]

I should have never opened this thread... I've never paid attention to the tilt shift lenses- but damnit- now that I understand the purpose of them I want one. Unfortunately I've already spent close to 7k on camera gear since the first of the year- doh!

[_aravena]

Yeah, I hate looking at this thread. Lucky for me there's not much around that a TS could improve on. While occasionally I shoot architecture, not enough to justify this over another lens for the time being.

[OL9245]

Yeah, I hate looking at this thread. Lucky for me there's not much around that a TS could improve on. While occasionally I shoot architecture, not enough to justify this over another lens for the time being.
Agree.
My 24mm TSE is the only lens I use professionally and I dont use for my leisure. with some rare exception like this self portrait (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4863454&postcount=1). I wanted to have the eyes on focus, and nothing else. It took me 75 shots before I got half way of where I wanted to be, and I gave up.

Be prepared to need at least 15 minutes before any decent shot (remember focus AND metering are manual). Tripod is mandatory in many cases (especially with tilt)

And all this pain is to get a soft image, with huge barrel distortion, vigneting, and purple fringe in the corners.

For my job, I cannot use anything else, but nobody look at my professional images LOL. I make them to feed powerful computers with data :cry:

If there were a bigger market for this lens, or competition from other companies, Canon would have released a MkII version for long.

[hexa]

When you take a landscape picture with a normal lens, with your camera leveled, the horizon is in the middle of the picture. Does someone know, just how much the horizon can be "moved" with a) full shift b) shift that does not go into the "red" area? And is effect different in vertical/landscape orientation?

[OL9245]

When you take a landscape picture with a normal lens, with your camera leveled, the horizon is in the middle of the picture. Does someone know, just how much the horizon can be "moved" with a) full shift b) shift that does not go into the "red" area? And is effect different in vertical/landscape orientation?
the white lines allow you to shift 7mm. Teh red allow 11mm
depending on the sensor size.
with my 5D, 7mm is ~half way to the image edge. so I can have the horizon at the 1st 1/4 of the image, landscape orientation

if I shift all the way, I have 1 mm below the horizon and 23 mm above : I can virtually have the sky only, with no perspective distorsion.

I make very little difference between the red lines and the white ones. even centered, the lens has sharpness and purple fringe issue. For what I need, I always shoot at f8, full shift.

[hexa]

Ok, thanks OL for the information. :)

[hexa]

By the way: OL9245 (or any other), if you are interested in sending full-res images created with TS-E 24 and 5D, please send a PM to me. I have a gmail account which should have enough capacity.

[OiPaz]

If there were a bigger market for this lens, or competition from other companies, Canon would have released a MkII version for long.
I bigger market is unlikely, but competition is arriving: at PMA08 Nikon annouced his 24/3.5 tilt-shift which seems to be better that the Canon one, according to specifications.

[OL9245]

I bigger market is unlikely, but competition is arriving: at PMA08 Nikon annouced his 24/3.5 tilt-shift which seems to be better that the Canon one, according to specifications.
Thats good news. do you know where we can find the specs, especially MTF charts for this Nikon lens? I have some colleagues who are likely to consider buying Nikon instead of Canon if the lens is proved better.

[OiPaz]

do you know where we can find the specs, especially MTF charts for this Nikon lens?
Here: link (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012907nikkorpce24.asp).
They'll start selling it in March, according to the press release.

[wimg]

Thats good news. do you know where we can find the specs, especially MTF charts for this Nikon lens? I have some colleagues who are likely to consider buying Nikon instead of Canon if the lens is proved better.
Somebody posted some pics somewhere, with the Nikon. It seems that despite the specs, it is comparable, IQ-wise. Essentially, it is very hard to design and create a lens that is an extreme UWA for a much larger format and have 35 mm sharpness.

If I can find the links, I'll post them here.

Kind regards, Wim

[ChucklesKY]

You know, I had totally forgotten about tilt shift lenses for now until I opened this thread. Now I had to go and add the TS-E 24L to my wish list again!

Another cool application for tilt shift lenses, which some of you TS pros may know, is making big items look small. If you shoot a large area with a conventional lens most everything is at infinity and thus all in the same focal plane. This is the way our brain recognizes a photo of something at a distance. With a TS lens you can make a portion of that soft and out of focus. It fools our brain into thinking it is a photo taken at a close range such as a macro. I've seen some photos such as cityscapes, baseball fields, etc. shot with TS lenses and they look like incredibly detailed miniatures. I don't know if there's a practical purpose to this but it is pretty cool. Perhaps some of the experts here can elaborate on this.

[OL9245]

Here: link (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012907nikkorpce24.asp).
They'll start selling it in March, according to the press release.
we have to see with the images, but the specs look great for a TS lens.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/0801/nikon/nikkor_24_pce_mtf.jpg

[penagate]

I don't know if there's a practical purpose to this but it is pretty cool.

I cannot think of a practical purpose for making things look small. It is mostly a party trick. However, tilt can be used in landscape photography, for focusing on both near and far-away subjects with a wide aperture. It requires great care and practice to look realistic though.

[hexa]

What kind of distortions are you getting with TS-E 24? I have this strange one-sided distortion, for example here with 11mm shift:

http://hege.1g.fi/IMG_6634-01-uncorrected.jpg

The camera was leveled with a spirit level. Left side of frame is ok but the right.. The effect is visible without shift as well. And the camera is full-frame.

[penagate]

Not seen that with mine.

Does it occur at all apertures? I tend not to really stop down below f/11. Mine seems sharpest there and not so great any narrower.


edit: sure the building was straight? :D

[hexa]

Yes, occurs with all apertures. And I'm pretty sure that the building is straight :) This: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7937835@N03/2263533671/ looks a bit same, by the way.

[Quad]

...

[hexa]

Ok, seems that I found the cause of this: not the lens, just my stupidity. The spirit level on the flash shoe is actually not 100% level. Sorry for this :)

[penagate]

Well, I thought it didn't look perfectly level. But the right building seems to lean more than the left.

[hexa]

Well, I thought it didn't look perfectly level. But the right building seems to lean more than the left.
It is probably because with the hotshoe level, the camera is leaned little bit to the right _and_ upwards.

[jrsamples]

Kind of a silly question...and a little off topic for the lens, but has anybody played with the tilt correction in the 40d? This is similar in fuction to the tilt/shift, is it not?

Thanks,
Chuck

[penagate]

No.

Lens tilt alters the angle of the plane of focus.

Direct print tilt correction corrects the rotation of the image.

[OL9245]

Ok, seems that I found the cause of this: not the lens, just my stupidity. The spirit level on the flash shoe is actually not 100% level. Sorry for this :)
also consider the 24mm TSE hass a significant barrel distorsion so you cannot expect hve this sort of building perfectly lined whithout some posttreatment.

[jr_senator]

Whilst you could do this in photoshop, the editing would mean that you would have to crop the picture, there would also be some degradation as the pixels are stretched and compressed.

Yeah. but small adjustments don't look so bad.

[nazdravanul]

I would love to see some new samples here, if possible from 1ds3 owners - everyone else is welcomed (: .
I'm really torn about this lens. CA's and softness/resolution problems are my main concerns.

[adam8080]

Stopping down will help a little, but if you need that focal length in a tilt shift lens, then you don't have many choices.

[Mike-DT6]

I'm looking forward to seeing some more examples too. I really like the idea of a tilt-shift lens for architectural photographs. I use my 17-40mm for this and it's a nuisance having buildings leaning over all the time!

Mike

:-)

[OL9245]

I'm looking forward to seeing some more examples too. I really like the idea of a tilt-shift lens for architectural photographs. I use my 17-40mm for this and it's a nuisance having buildings leaning over all the time!

Mike

:-)


in this case you'd better buy the Nik.n (ooops! dont tell the Mods :D)
They have released a modern 24mm tilt shift lens while the Canon one was from the stone age (distortion, purple fringe, vignette, and soft). Canon seems too busy at making new fancy zooms to pay attention to our need of a Mk II for this lens.

[Mike-DT6]

:lol: I couldn't do that! My camera bag would reject it as readily as a failed organ transplant! I think it would have to be the Canon 24mm. :-)

One thing that drives me mad is when I get banana-shaped towers and monuments. Also, recently I took some photographs in which there was a phone box towards the left of the frame (with no way to compose differently), so the phone box ended up leaning over, which has ruined the photograph. If I could correct things like this with a tilt-shift I would be using it all the time.

Mike

:-)

[In2Photos]

in this case you'd better buy the Nik.n (ooops! dont tell the Mods :D)

You don't think we read every post? :cool: Shame on you! :evil: Mwuhahahaha!

[OL9245]

You don't think we read every post? :cool: Shame on you! :evil: Mwuhahahaha!

:D :D :D An now I'm sure you will read all my posts :D :D :D
BTW, I want to say thank you to all Mods for your fantastic (although almost invisible) job. POTN celebrity throughout the world owes much to your work.

[Lester Wareham]

Has someone posted the CPS article on this (I am behind with my email and only just discovered it) http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/technical/tilt_and_shift_lenses.do#container

[Mike-DT6]

That's an excellent article. Hadn't seen that before.

What I don't understand about the tilt-shift lenses is how you can have straight vertical lines near the edge of the frame. Is it because the imaging circle is much larger than with a conventional lens and the sensor only sees a bit that is proportionally much closer to the centre when the settings are un-shifted?

I thought the 17-40mm was supposed to be rectilinear, but I get quite serious bananalinear verticals! :lol:

Mike

[Lester Wareham]

That's an excellent article. Hadn't seen that before.

What I don't understand about the tilt-shift lenses is how you can have straight vertical lines near the edge of the frame. Is it because the imaging circle is much larger than with a conventional lens and the sensor only sees a bit that is proportionally much closer to the centre when the settings are un-shifted?

I thought the 17-40mm was supposed to be rectilinear, but I get quite serious bananalinear verticals! :lol:

Mike

Yes correct, a 35mm T&S has a circle size about the the same as a medium format camera, so when you use the shift to get correct verticals on a building you are just using the upper part of the lens FOV.

The 17-40 is a fairly good lens but zoom will always tend to have more barrel and pincushion than primes. However this is easy to fix in photoshop or by using DPP if your camera is new enough to be compatible with the new lens correction features. Of course this sort of interpolation causes some subtle softening of the image.

The thing I found interesting was the examples of the use of tilt, the beer bottles where particularly enlightening (you click to see the effect of 0, 2 and 4 degree tilt), I also liked some of the creative uses like portrait and the landscape shot of the BNSC.

[Mike-DT6]

Thanks for the explanation. I could definitely make good use of a tilt-shift lens. :-)

I have used the lens correction filter in Photoshop, but I end up losing quite a bit of image when I have to crop it afterwards. Sometimes I'll compose the photograph with the subjects away from the edge of the frame to avoid the distortion, but it's not ideal.

Yes, I found the beer bottles example very interesting too. I wasn't quite sure why the viewpoint appeared to have changed for the four degrees example. I would have expected the difference between that and two degrees to be an exaggerated example of the difference between normal and two degrees, rather than an apparent change in the viewpoint.

Mike

:-)

[Lester Wareham]

I wasn't quite sure why the viewpoint appeared to have changed for the four degrees example.

Yes, I wondered about that too.

I don't know if there is a slight shift introduced by a tilt, perhaps an owner of a T&S can enlighten us?

[Scuff]

Yes, I wondered about that too.

I don't know if there is a slight shift introduced by a tilt, perhaps an owner of a T&S can enlighten us?

Yes there is, you are not pivoting at the sensor, but forward of it....

[Mike-DT6]

So why is there no change of that nature between the first and second photographs?

[Nick_b]

Wow, not many photos in here eh. I rented one last weekend here are a few.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/_MG_8511.jpg

these next ones were taken on film I hope you guys don't mind.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/img157.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/img160.jpg

[Lester Wareham]

Very nice pics.

Yes not many pics because most of us can't afford the darn things, or at least can't justify one over other stuff (at the moment food, transport, fuel then a 500/4 :rolleyes: ).

Which of the three lenses was that Nick?

[Nick_b]

Very nice pics.

Yes not many pics because most of us can't afford the darn things, or at least can't justify one over other stuff (at the moment food, transport, fuel then a 500/4 :rolleyes: ).

Which of the three lenses was that Nick?

Thanks! it was the 24mm 3.5

They are a little intimidating at first but I was surprised how easy it was to use. I've heard people say it's a tripod only lens... well that wasn't my experience at all.

After renting the lens it sure has jumped up the ranking on my wish list! I'm sure if more people had the chance to try one out a lot more people would own them.

[Wilt]

Thanks! it was the 24mm 3.5

They are a little intimidating at first but I was surprised how easy it was to use. I've heard people say it's a tripod only lens... well that wasn't my experience at all.

After renting the lens it sure has jumped up the ranking on my wish list! I'm sure if more people had the chance to try one out a lot more people would own them.

Tilt-shift lenses certainly are not tripod-only lenses, but the second photo you posted is a clear example of NOT keeping the perfectly parallel verticals which the T&S lens permits...if you had used a tripod and a bubble level, then shifted the lens for composition desired, the vertical line would have been kept parallel. In lieu of a bubble level and tripod, more obsessive paying attention to parallel verticals can accomplish the same thing. I have done very extensive use of the Oly 24mm PC lens entirely hand held during a trip in Europe, and I have my imperfect verticals included in the shots! :)

[Lester Wareham]

I do hear they are, in practice at least, full frame only lenses, at least for the tilt operation, because a larger focus screen is needed to gauge focus (live view may help here).

Also I am not sure if the maximum shift than can be applied on APS-C is limited due to the mirror box causing vignetting.

I would be interested to hear from people that have used the tilt and/or the shift function on APS-C successfully, and to indicate any special issues this raises.

[Nick_b]

Tilt-shift lenses certainly are not tripod-only lenses, but the second photo you posted is a clear example of NOT keeping the perfectly parallel verticals which the T&S lens permits...if you had used a tripod and a bubble level, then shifted the lens for composition desired, the vertical line would have been kept parallel. In lieu of a bubble level and tripod, more obsessive paying attention to parallel verticals can accomplish the same thing. I have done very extensive use of the Oly 24mm PC lens entirely hand held during a trip in Europe, and I have my imperfect verticals included in the shots! :)


If you mean the arching stones to the right of the lion that is a part of an archway. If you look at the top left of the picture you can see a vertical line that looks pretty darn straight to my eyes.

[Nick_b]

I do hear they are, in practice at least, full frame only lenses, at least for the tilt operation, because a larger focus screen is needed to gauge focus (live view may help here).

Also I am not sure if the maximum shift than can be applied on APS-C is limited due to the mirror box causing vignetting.

I would be interested to hear from people that have used the tilt and/or the shift function on APS-C successfully, and to indicate any special issues this raises.


That first picture I posted was hand held with my 20D while balancing myself in a tree. Here are a few other tilt shots with my 20D. I found it easy enough and I'm not particularly good at MF.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/livelifelivepics/_MG_8536.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/livelifelivepics/_MG_8504.jpg

[Wilt]

If you mean the arching stones to the right of the lion that is a part of an archway. If you look at the top left of the picture you can see a vertical line that looks pretty darn straight to my eyes.


Nick, I realize there is an arch at the right side of the photo. I could well be wrong (without seeing a photo with a larger total area) but I would think that even an arch has straight sides up to certain height, and the the rounded section of the arch sets above that...but in the photo I see the lower portions slanting away from the lion, which seems to indicate more perspective-induced converting line distortion. And even if you look at the extreme left, the stones close to the edge of the frame do diverge away from the frame edge (5mm at the lower portion on my monitior, 7mm at the upper portion on my monitor, so even that side is not preserving architecturally true portrayal.

[Nick_b]

Nick, I realize there is an arch at the right side of the photo. I could well be wrong (without seeing a photo with a larger total area) but I would think that even an arch has straight sides up to certain height, and the the rounded section of the arch sets above that...but in the photo I see the lower portions slanting away from the lion, which seems to indicate more perspective-induced converting line distortion. And even if you look at the extreme left, the stones close to the edge of the frame do diverge away from the frame edge (5mm at the lower portion on my monitior, 7mm at the upper portion on my monitor, so even that side is not preserving architecturally true portrayal.


Still, not that bad though, imo. I do see what you are saying. Of course small things like that can be tweaked in post process and you still don't need a tripod.

My point is simply that you don't need to be a perfectionist to enjoy the lens.

[Wilt]

Still, not that bad though, imo. I do see what you are saying. Of course small things like that can be tweaked in post process and you still don't need a tripod.

My point is simply that you don't need to be a perfectionist to enjoy the lens.


I agree you don't need to be a perfectionist to enjoy the lens. But given the point of discussion being the need (or not) for tripod usage, a photo with fewer diverging/converging line flaws would provide a much more convincing argument that you don't need a tripod! :)

[jr_senator]

"Use a tripod for every shot". I was told this 50 years ago by my mentor when I was just starting out in photography. Of course one can't but I think a support could be used more often than they are.

[OiPaz]

I would be interested to hear from people that have used the tilt and/or the shift function on APS-C successfully, and to indicate any special issues this raises.
I've used it often on APS-H and some times on APS-C: due to the small sensor the FoV is narrower than on a 5D, but on the other hand the shift movement has more effectiveness, as 11mm represent a bigger percentage of the length of the sensor. Furthermore you may tilt and shift as much as you want with no severe vignetting.

[Lester Wareham]

"Use a tripod for every shot". I was told this 50 years ago by my mentor when I was just starting out in photography. Of course one can't but I think a support could be used more often than they are.

Yes indeed, 30 years ago I would 10-20 miles with a prime kit on top of a 4.5Kg tripod, don't think I could manage that now.

<grumpy old man mode> Don't know what excuse the younguns have, probably need one had free at all time for texting or something :rolleyes: . </grumpy old man mode>

I must agree, if you want to get accurate verticals, T&S or not a tripod would seem mandatory.

[Lester Wareham]

I've used it often on APS-H and some times on APS-C: due to the small sensor the FoV is narrower than on a 5D, but on the other hand the tilt movement has more effectiveness, as 11mm represent a bigger percentage of the length of the sensor. Furthermore you may tilt and shift as much as you want with no severe vignetting.

Thanks that is very reassuring.

Now I just need to convince the wife we need a T&S more than food.... I thinking, .... no I'll have to come back on that one.

[OL9245]

That first picture I posted was hand held with my 20D while balancing myself in a tree. Here are a few other tilt shots with my 20D. I found it easy enough and I'm not particularly good at MF.


you still have the AF capacity within your camera body. The only thing you miss is the USM motor ;)
-> just swivel the focus ring until your camera beeps and the AF colimator lights.

the bad thing you will be missing is elsewhere : manual exposure is mandatory when shifted. (means : expose first, shift second. At every time you need your in-camera meter, you have to shift the lens back into center position)

[Lester Wareham]

you still have the AF capacity within your camera body. The only thing you miss is the USM motor ;)
-> just swivel the focus ring until your camera beeps and the AF colimator lights.

the bad thing you will be missing is elsewhere : manual exposure is mandatory when shifted. (means : expose first, shift second. At every time you need your in-camera meter, you have to shift the lens back into center position)

An AF detect is not going to help doing tilt focus much, you are trying to set the angle of the plane of focus a total different prospect to a normal focus operation on a few AF points.

Presumably live view would help a lot with this, anyone tried that?

[OL9245]

An AF detect is not going to help doing tilt focus much, you are trying to set the angle of the plane of focus a total different prospect to a normal focus operation on a few AF points.

Presumably live view would help a lot with this, anyone tried that?

I've just done a test to check (24 TSE on 5D).
The "manual-AF" (is it to be called AF-assisted manual focus :)?) works fine with shift (up to half way, but not more) or tilt (full range). It may work with shift and tilt but not always. When AF stops working on a given point, I still can focus on a brighter point. I got similar results with the lens rotated horizontal or vertical.

The range of workable AF v/s shift and tilt seemed to be due to AF limitations itself, rather than intrinsic optical properties of the tilted or shifted lens.

Of course I can only focus on a point where an AF colimator is (mostly at the center), which limits the help I can get from it. Was it what you wanted to point out?

[Lester Wareham]

Of course I can only focus on a point where an AF colimator is (mostly at the center), which limits the help I can get from it. Was it what you wanted to point out?

Yes it was. Of course no obstacle to using the shift, but good to know people have proved it.

Of course another way with the tilt is to guess or measure the angles and do the sums, set the lens tilt on that, then you could just focus one point of the tilted plane and bingo the rest of the plane should about right.

Sounds a little on the unwieldy side however....

[Mike-DT6]

I'm very interested to know how you can correct verticals on a building with such a small amount of shift. I understand that you are effectively shifting the viewpoint to half way up the building, but how is that achieved with just a small shift?

If you are shifting the lens up by no more than 11mm, why is that not the same as lifting the camera up by 11mm? Obviously it isn't the same, but I don't know why!

Is the shift at the lens multiplied by some factor that accounts for the difference in distance between the lens and subject, and the lens and sensor?

Mike

:-)

[OL9245]

I'm very interested to know how you can correct verticals on a building with such a small amount of shift. I understand that you are effectively shifting the viewpoint to half way up the building, but how is that achieved with just a small shift?

If you are shifting the lens up by no more than 11mm, why is that not the same as lifting the camera up by 11mm? Obviously it isn't the same, but I don't know why!

Is the shift at the lens multiplied by some factor that accounts for the difference in distance between the lens and subject, and the lens and sensor?

Mike

:-)

to understand how shif lens works, you have to figure out the lens is designed for a sensor of 46x58 mm (not 24x36mm). so you can take virtually a very large image of what you see. But you have a sensor of only 24x36 mm. The shift allows you to position the sensor at any place within the workable area of 46x58 mm.

The result is virtually the same as if you had this huge sensor, and you cropped the resulting image in photoshop. For architecture photogaphy, this allow you to position your camera with the sensor plane parrallel to the building. This eliminates perspective distorsion. On the virual huge image, this settings results in having the top half of the image with the building on it, and the bottom half with the street, and even your shoes. Of course you will shift the lens so that the sensor will catch the building, and crop the street.

[Mike-DT6]

Thanks for your reply OL :-)

I realized that there is a large image circle, but I didn't understand how you could effectively place the forward viewpoint half way up a tall building with only a small shift. I expect all will become clear when I get to try it out in practice!

Mike

:-)

[OL9245]

Thanks for your reply OL :-)

I realized that there is a large image circle, but I didn't understand how you could effectively place the forward viewpoint half way up a tall building with only a small shift. I expect all will become clear when I get to try it out in practice!

Mike

:-)

in breif, this is just as if you shoot with a wider zoom lens, and you crop. The wider lens may be wide enough to contain the entire building in the halp part of the image. In this case, you can take the imahe with the film plane parralel to the building.

[Lester Wareham]

Thanks for your reply OL :-)

I realized that there is a large image circle, but I didn't understand how you could effectively place the forward viewpoint half way up a tall building with only a small shift. I expect all will become clear when I get to try it out in practice!

Mike

:-)

You can shift say 11mm of a 24mm high frame for FF in landscape orientation.

So if the building is 60 ft height and with your camera leveled and no shift you have placed your tripod so you can see the first 35 ft in the top half of your frame, just like with an ordinary 24mm.

All all you need to do is add 8.6mm of sift and bingo you can see the whole height of the building but with the verticals parallel.

Calculation:

Half frame height = 12mm
Building height out of view before shift = 60-35 = 25 ft
Shift required to bring top of building in line with top edge of frame
= 25/35*12 = 8.6mm

Don't forget, movement of the sensor or lens is translated to the subject (objective) by similar triangles based on the magnification, here the magnification is
0.012/35*3.28=0.001125X

ie movement at the lens is magnified by 889X at the subject.

Never used the lens but I am sure that is right. I love it when a plan comes together!

[Mike-DT6]

Thank you both.

Yes, I see now. I suppose it was pretty obvious after all! :lol:

I'm on the lookout for a 24mm now. Definitely something I find the need for with my buildings photographs, plus the tilt capability would be great for landscape depth of field manipulation.

I can't decide whether I need a 5D next, or one of these lenses!

Mike

:-)

[Lester Wareham]

Thank you both.

Yes, I see now. I suppose it was pretty obvious after all! :lol:

I'm on the lookout for a 24mm now. Definitely something I find the need for with my buildings photographs, plus the tilt capability would be great for landscape depth of field manipulation.

I can't decide whether I need a 5D next, or one of these lenses!

Mike

:-)

Mike I can assure you, you desperately need both!

That is the POTN way!. :)

[Mike-DT6]

Yes, typical isn't it? :lol: I'm currently watching twelve 5Ds on eBay, to see what is happening with the prices, especially now that the MkII version is coming out. Might need to leave that for a couple more months yet, to give the MkII (and the recession) a chance to take its toll on prices.

The tilt-shift is the kind of thing I might have to buy on the spur of the moment if something comes up unexpectedly!

Mike

:-)

[TheGaffer]

You should do your metering with an unshifted/untilted lens,
Could someone please explain why?

My thinking is that the camera should be able to meter based on the image it sees, tilted, shifted or not.

Andrew (who will be renting a 24mm TS-E next week...)

[OL9245]

Could someone please explain why?

My thinking is that the camera should be able to meter based on the image it sees, tilted, shifted or not.

Andrew (who will be renting a 24mm TS-E next week...)
I dont know the theory behind that. I think this is due to the details of the geometry of the meter cell inside the body. as soon as you shift the lens, the meter gets crazy. you cannot do this mistake twice. The error is realy huge.

[jacobsen1]

the meter can go crazy. It doesn't always though. But I shoot panos with mine, so because I'll be stitching later, the frames NEED to be the same, so I meter at the middle (which I need anyway), flip it to M, then fire off the 3 shots.

FYI, I'll be selling my 24mm TS-E soon. PM me if you're interested. It's basically brand new.

[Scuff]

Here is a sample with 3 degrees of tilt - hand held.

Using my rough and ready chart, I am able to determine pretty well what tilt angle I can dial in for my desired effect. So I tilt the lens, then focus again through the viewfinder. It's a pretty good way of using the TS-E lenses when walking around without a tripod.

318321

[Lester Wareham]

Very nice.

I was wondering if you could just use the maths to apply the tilt, looks like you can. Was this just focus by eye or does the focus confirm light help any?

[jr_senator]

Using my rough and ready chart,

Please explain.

[Scuff]

Very nice.

I was wondering if you could just use the maths to apply the tilt, looks like you can. Was this just focus by eye or does the focus confirm light help any?

Hi Lester

I have posted this chart before, but to save searching...... I use it most of the time as a quick and dirty reference which helps me visualise the focus plane more accurately.
318328

I was able to confidently focus just using the viewfinder on this one, but do use the focus confirmation lights more on the 90 TS-E.

[Scuff]

Here is a shot that demonstrates how well flare is controlled with this lens. It also has a Hoya Pro-1 UV filter on the front......

318331

[Lester Wareham]

Hi Lester

I have posted this chart before, but to save searching...... I use it most of the time as a quick and dirty reference which helps me visualise the focus plane more accurately.
.....

I was able to confidently focus just using the viewfinder on this one, but do use the focus confirmation lights more on the 90 TS-E.

Right you can derive that mathematically and the angle of the planes of acceptable focus, see http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/tiltshift.htm . Of course the actual angle of ideal focus depends of the focus distance, that looks right for infinity focus (lens to image distance == focal length).

For a simple lens:

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/tiltshift/SF%20Tilt.GIF

What I was asking about was where you say:

So I tilt the lens, then focus again through the viewfinder.

Can the focus confirm be relied on in your experience or do you focus by eye?

[Lester Wareham]

Here is a shot that demonstrates how well flare is controlled with this lens. It also has a Hoya Pro-1 UV filter on the front......


Again great shot. Have you noted any vignetting problems at maximum tilt or shift with a filter fitted?

[Scuff]

Hi Lester

In my experience I can trust the focus confirmation, I tend to use it with the 90 more than the 24.

There is some vignetting at the extremes, which I would expect. I try to stay 'out of the red' as far as possible and therefore do not consider it a problem.

[Lester Wareham]

Thanks.

[sheawyatt]

Just picked up my mint, used copy an hour and a half ago. There aren't nearly enough samples from this lens, so I thought I'd throw up a few quick and dirty samples to showcase it's technical merits while I learn to use the thing.

These were all shot on a tripod.

1 -- using it as a REALLY high quality 24mm prime. 1/100 f/7.1
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/ShroomFull.jpg

2 -- 100% crop
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/normalcrop.jpg

To show how tilting can be useful when you need DOF but can't stop down in order to keep the shutter speed up (not required in this case but for moving flowers, etc, it will be handy)
3 -- no tilt. 100% crop 1/50 f/5
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/Topuntilt.jpg

4 -- max tilt. 100% crop 1/50 f/5
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/Toptilt.jpg

5 -- A bit of shifting action 1/500 f/3.5
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/Shedshift.jpg

6 -- 100% crop of the above. NOTICE I missed focus on the shed. The lack of CA and fringing is amazing! My 17-40 would be horrible with the backlit branches and leaves stopped down, never mind wide open!
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/Shedcrop.jpg

7 -- macro function using a 12mm extension tube. Focus was about 2 cm from the front element. 1/100 f/9 ISO800
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/Extension.jpg

8 -- 100% crop of the above.
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/Extensioncrop.jpg


My conclusion after only 1 hour of playing with this thing: It is built like a tank, optical quality is SUPERB, learning to use tilting and shifting properly will be a major challenge. I can't wait to pick up a 5D2 in the spring to really make it shine.

Expect more updates in the coming weeks, provided the weather remains half decent.

Edit: Oh yeah, the focusing ring. It is sublime. I thought I might miss AF, but the manual focus action is so smooth it is a delight to use, and AF confirm works perfectly. I'll have to learn to focus pull for HD video with the 5D2, but I don't think it will be too difficult.

[Mark Vuleta]

For a simple lens:

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/tiltshift/SF%20Tilt.GIF




Lester, I was wondering if you could give me a bit of assistance with the above chart.

I have read/re-read the articles that the chart is taken from & are getting a better handle on the mathematics behind the operation of the lens.

From the above I understand that the angle of the SF plane changes dependant upon the focus distance for a given amount of tilt but can you give me an explanation of the figures one the right hand side (which are the key to the coloured plots on the graph)

What I am trying to ask: what do the numbers e.g. o.029 or 0.042 represent?

I have just got the 24 and am finally getting the chance this weekend to play with it outside (weather permitting:rolleyes:)

[Lester Wareham]

Lester, I was wondering if you could give me a bit of assistance with the above chart.

I have read/re-read the articles that the chart is taken from & are getting a better handle on the mathematics behind the operation of the lens.

From the above I understand that the angle of the SF plane changes dependant upon the focus distance for a given amount of tilt but can you give me an explanation of the figures one the right hand side (which are the key to the coloured plots on the graph)

What I am trying to ask: what do the numbers e.g. o.029 or 0.042 represent?

I have just got the 24 and am finally getting the chance this weekend to play with it outside (weather permitting:rolleyes:)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

The numbers you indicate are the distance from the lens rear nodal point to the centre of the image plane centre in metres.

So at 0.024 (24mm) an object point in the centre of the optical field will be in perfect focus at infinity. At 0.048 (48mm) an object point in the centre of the optical field is at life size magnification M=(A-F)/F where A is the distance on the distance from the lens rear nodal point to the centre of the image plane centre and F is the focal length.

So it is a way of noting the focus distance in a tilt independent way. Of course all the models make the simplifying assumption of a thin lens with, by definition, unity pupillary magnification.

So the focus distance of the object side centre of optical field of view from the lens front principle node will be given by the classic lens equation using the distance labels of the analysis 1/Z=1/F-1/A.

So you see the focus plane tilts less as you focus closer, plus the angular separation between the planes of acceptable focus (depth of field) gets smaller.

This diagram shows the effect for a 24mm lens with A=32mm and 8 degree of lens tilt at f8. The red lines on the left indicate the image and lens planes and the blue lines show the wedge shaped depth of field.

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/tiltshift/dof-close-up-2.gif

When the lens focus is set close to infinity you get the plane of sharp focus at 90 degrees with a wider wedge of planes of acceptable focus like this:

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/tiltshift/dof-inf-2.gif

A simpler way of showing this is

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/tiltshift/Closeup%20Tilt%2024mm%20Full.jpg

But if you have one of these lenses to play with you can enjoy practical experimentation rather than having to make do with wistful mathematical analysis. ;)

[Mark Vuleta]

Thanks Lester

Now that my brain has got over your post (it eventually made sense to me:rolleyes:).

I have spent a bit of time trying to understand the maths of the lens for two reasons.

Firstly, I struggle with focusing the lens due to poor eyes and the small viewfinder on the 30D. I am tossing up as to whether to get a split screen for the camera or get a 1DsM11:oops: (secretly leaning towards the second option:o)

And the second reason, just to attempt to improve my technical knowledge although it seems the more I learn, the less I know:(.

As a follow up question, is there some form of table that I could convert the decimal figures to equivalent focus distances (or could you point me to the appropriate formula). Maths & algebra not being my strong point (point me to a leaking water pipe or a blocked drain & I'm your man!, maths, not so much)

As a matter of interest, do you know how accurate are the charts in respect to "thin lens"verses the actual practical lens?


Sorry for all of the questions, I think I will like the beast but would just like to get the best out of it.

(did have good weather this weekend but too busy to play :()

[Lester Wareham]

Thanks Lester

Now that my brain has got over your post (it eventually made sense to me:rolleyes:).

I have spent a bit of time trying to understand the maths of the lens for two reasons.

Firstly, I struggle with focusing the lens due to poor eyes and the small viewfinder on the 30D. I am tossing up as to whether to get a split screen for the camera or get a 1DsM11:oops: (secretly leaning towards the second option:o)

And the second reason, just to attempt to improve my technical knowledge although it seems the more I learn, the less I know:(.

As a follow up question, is there some form of table that I could convert the decimal figures to equivalent focus distances (or could you point me to the appropriate formula). Maths & algebra not being my strong point (point me to a leaking water pipe or a blocked drain & I'm your man!, maths, not so much)

As a matter of interest, do you know how accurate are the charts in respect to "thin lens"verses the actual practical lens?


Sorry for all of the questions, I think I will like the beast but would just like to get the best out of it.

(did have good weather this weekend but too busy to play :()

Actually I thought Scuff's diagram above was fairly handy
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6648419&postcount=107

The maths is on the web site, it is all trig and similar triangles, nothing remotely exotic.

As for the difference between the thin lens simplification and a real lens the following points come to mind:

1. The front and rear nodes will be separated by the nodal separation rather than being coincident, this will tend to add a bit to the overall image plane to subject plane distance.

2. Real SLR lenses are often slightly retro or telefocus and exhibit a non-unity pupillary magnification. This will effect the depth of field calculation a little, but I would ignore that.

3. Due to the nodal separation, when the lens is tilted one or both nodal points must I guess undergo some rotation depending exactly where the tilt axis point is set. Additionally looking at the construction the focus helicoid is in front of the tilt mechanism, so presumably some rear nodal point rotation will be introduced by focusing nearer than infinity. This might manifest as some apparent image shift when the lens is tilted, but I am guessing, perhaps an owner can comment.

The above points may explain some differences between my calculated focus plane tilt and those in scruffs diagram.

I think playing around with numbers for the thin model is probably interesting but trying to deal with all the practical points is fraught with difficulty, particularly as many of the variables will not be precisely known.

[Mark Vuleta]

Thanks Lester

I'll have a bit more of a read on the site. (although it makes me more like your location under your avitar :D)

Then, its time to practice, practice & practice.

I do have an angle viewfinder with a 2X magnification which is making it easier to focus so that may be the way for me to go in the meantime.

Thanks for your assistance

Cheers



Mark

[MaDProFF]

Has anyone found this lens to be soft in use?

[sheawyatt]

Has anyone found this lens to be soft in use?

The only softness I've seen is corners when used with max shift -- if you avoid the ranges marked with red on the lens, sharpness is very good. I find the centre sharpness to be best between f/5.6-7.1, but still very good up to f/13.

Anywho, a few pics from today.

13 second exposure, shot with 10 stop ND and 4 degrees tilt and a bit of shift up.
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/2008-12-22_16-28-32_BlackCreekwithS.jpg

Shifting up/down - Two landscape shots stitched vertically
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/BlackCreektoOcean.jpg

Shifting left/right - Two landscape shots stitched horizontally
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/BlackCreekPano.jpg

Tilted 1.5 degrees to get the far footprint in focus at f/5.0
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/2008-12-22_16-46-17_DuckFootprintsi.jpg

[Mark Vuleta]

Has anyone found this lens to be soft in use?


Only had it a short while & haven't really had time to play (I'm dedicating the next month to get the hang of it!) but un-tilted/shifted, I haven't got any complaints.

The colour rendition is a bit better in my eyes than my other lens in this focal length (Sigma 18-50 2.8 DG).

I am using it on a 30D, so with a combination of my poor eyes and the small veiwfinder, I need time to get the focus right (which is slightly missed in this shot)

Overall, I like it.

http://www.pbase.com/mark_vuleta/image/107087390.jpg

Cheers


Mark

[OL9245]

Has anyone found this lens to be soft in use?

Yes.
Canon should upgrade this lens, as Ni#on did.

[MaDProFF]

Well I finally went for one, and took it out today,

Great Fun, HUGE learning Curve, with bags of potential :)

Will try and add a few more, when I sorted them out

[MaDProFF]

The sort of shot you would expect to see with this lens, it is amazing how many variations you have with the outcome of a photo with this lens

[Mark Vuleta]

Nice Brett, the last one though is perhaps a little over corrected? Did you have a level on the camera?

I have got one but after recent attempts with my TS, decided to check the level & it's well out (what can you expect for $7.50 :rolleyes::oops:)

[MaDProFF]

Nice Brett, the last one though is perhaps a little over corrected? Did you have a level on the camera?

I have got one but after recent attempts with my TS, decided to check the level & it's well out (what can you expect for $7.50 :rolleyes::oops:)

Why do you think it is over corrected? the cars, ?

That was hand held as well, I just look in the viewfinder and look for a line that I feel should be horizontal and a line vertical

[Scuff]

Why do you think it is over corrected? the cars, ?

That was hand held as well, I just look in the viewfinder and look for a line that I feel should be horizontal and a line vertical

There appears to be a slight over correction. It is often more noticeable as it is not what the eye sees when looking at tall buildings.

If it helps, I will often under correct a small amount to leave the viewer more comfortable. I will always use a tripod and a level with my TS-E lenses, I also have a grid screen fitted.

Nice shot otherwise Mad...... Maybe we can do some architecture on the next SE meet, and let the others take pictures of snowmen :lol:

Hope you do not mind, here is a quick edit....
330030

[Mike-DT6]

Some nice photos appearing here recently. :-)

The verticals on the building photograph look parallel to me. I think the wider section on the top of the tower and that drainpipe running down the side are creating the illusion that it leans out slightly.

Mike

:-)

[jr_senator]

There appears to be a slight over correction.

If it helps, I will often under correct a small amount to leave the viewer more comfortable. I will always use a tripod and a level with my TS-E lenses, I also have a grid screen fitted.

Yes, there appears a slight over correction which makes the picture slightly unpleasant.

You made some very good points. I would love to have a grid on my 'L' screen. The 'L' screen has the best focusing aid I do believe I have ever had. Either the aftermarket screen makers don't offer the service of adding a grid to the customer's screen or the cost to do so is ridiculously high. I know it takes but a moment or two to change screens, but it would be nice to have both.

[Wilt]

not overcorrected...on my monitor I measure 19mm to the edge of frame at level 3, versus 17.5mm to edge of frame at ground level (I am not measuring to downspout, but to edge of stucco ediface. optical illusion.

[Mike-DT6]

Yes, I measured from the nearest corner of the building (below the wider bit!) to the edge of the photograph. Bang-on 21mm right the way down on my monitor.

I appreciate that it's common practice to have slightly converging verticals, but then that gives rise to people complaining about it! :lol: On architectural photographs I prefer things dead parallel.

Mike

[jr_senator]

For whatever reasons, the second picture is more pleasant to look at.

[alexwise]

Very nice sheawyatt!

[Mark Vuleta]

Why do you think it is over corrected? the cars, ?

That was hand held as well, I just look in the viewfinder and look for a line that I feel should be horizontal and a line vertical


Hi Brett:

Over corrected is probably not the right term I should have used.

I'm not into measurabating images, just rely on how an image appears to my eyes.

To me (and it may be just me), a good architectural image should represent the way your eyes interpret the genuine article and as we would normally expect to see some convergence of the verticals, I believe that it would look better if you had tilted the camera back ever-so slightly.

While your image probably is technically accurate (and very well done, hand held), to me it looks like it is falling towards me (slightly). This is an optical illusion.

There is also something about the centre of the image that I cannot put my finger on but it just doesn't look right.

Please don't take this as a criticism of your work as I have got a long way to get to your skill level and even more work to do using a TS. This being a lens photo archive, it is probably the best place to show an image indicating what the lens is capable of.

(PS I look forward to meeting up with Wazza soon & hearing about your lads excussions)

[MaDProFF]

Mark, that's fine, I always happy to receive views, opinions, it helps me become a better photographer.
I do feel the cars look a little modleish if there is such a word :)

Heh, say Hi To Wazza, cannot wait till he gets back to to feel our lovely weather we are having

[rdenney]

I have posted a short article on this lens on my web page. I get asked about it often enough so that it was worth the trouble. I don't have 100% crops, because there's no need--the lens does what it does. If you need to adjust the plane of focus, you'll put up with the little problems this lens displays, but really the problems are tiny and the benefits huge. The images could be produced no other way.

http://www.rickdenney.com/tilt_shift.htm

I don't think it covers anything not already covered in this thread already, but it provides a short synopsis with examples for those who are new to camera movements. Here's one of the examples, made with a 5D and this lens.

http://www.rickdenney.com/houseruinsbwlr.jpg

Rick "not new to camera movements but new to this lens" Denney

[sheawyatt]

Is it bad that I haven't wanted to take my 17-40L out of the bag ever since I bought this lens? I'm normally aching for more FOV on the 1.3X 1DII, but I've forced myself to only use the 24mm TS for anything landscape related for the last month, and I'm starting to become uncomfortably comfortable with such a 'tight' FOV.

Last week:

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/2009-01-02_12-06-55_MountWashington.jpg

A note for potential buyers: I picked up the Angle Finder C to try and help focus when tilting, and it is a big improvement.

[Lester Wareham]

Shea, I love your shot, one of the most artistically justified and creative reverse tilt shots I have ever seen.

[single_track]

wonderful

[OiPaz]

one of the most artistically justified and creative reverse tilt shots I have ever seen.
Agreed!

[palaima]

^^^^ agreed with above! Amazing shot!

[timnosenzo]

Last week:

Really an excellent shot, love it.

[pdjetlic]

Could someone with 5Dmk2 and this lens please make a video which would show how perspective is changed when lens is shifting/tilting - I'm seriously thinking of getting this lens and can't seem to find any video that shows it.

Thank you!

[jr_senator]

good luck!

[rdenney]

Could someone with 5Dmk2 and this lens please make a video which would show how perspective is changed when lens is shifting/tilting - I'm seriously thinking of getting this lens and can't seem to find any video that shows it.

Thank you!

You're better off to rent one and try it for yourself. The video won't help because it won't relate what you see in it to the settings of the lens, but it would be kind of freaky to look at.

Or, go to a book store and look through a book about view cameras.

Rick "suggesting a personal rather than vicarious experience" Denney

[pdjetlic]

The concept of renting a lens in Croatia is unknown. You are lucky if they allow you to test the lens in a store for that matter. I've read some books about T&S but I'd like to see it in action. I saw some YouTube videos showing Nikon T&S in action so I guess it will have to do... :) Thx.

[rdenney]

The concept of renting a lens in Croatia is unknown. You are lucky if they allow you to test the lens in a store for that matter. I've read some books about T&S but I'd like to see it in action. I saw some YouTube videos showing Nikon T&S in action so I guess it will have to do... :) Thx.

In that case, I would suggest a classic: Ansel Adams, The Camera. The technology is dated, but the material is still 100% applicable to digital photography, especially if you are to the point of considering a tilt/shift lens. You won't regret it. I'm hoping you can find a book like that in Croatia, or at least have it delivered in.

An alternate plan is to just buy one, and then figure it out. If it doesn't work out, I bet you'd get a very high percentage of your purchase price in selling it back to someone else, perhaps through this forum. The difference might be no more than two or three rental sessions.

Rick "suggesting that the principles involved aren't really video material" Denney

[ZeissFan]

YES! :D
Set your awful 17-40 free! :D
Set It Free Brother!:D
Set It Free!:D

...pssst...

:cool: PM me for the Adress of my household recycle bin for proper disposal of this potentially dangerous item!
:pWouldn't want that sharp metal and glass bits mucking up the environment would we!

Gorgeous Image By The Way!

Richard
Is it bad that I haven't wanted to take my 17-40L out of the bag ever since I bought this lens? I'm normally aching for more FOV on the 1.3X 1DII, but I've forced myself to only use the 24mm TS for anything landscape related for the last month, and I'm starting to become uncomfortably comfortable with such a 'tight' FOV.

Last week:

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/snwyatt/2009-01-02_12-06-55_MountWashington.jpg

A note for potential buyers: I picked up the Angle Finder C to try and help focus when tilting, and it is a big improvement.

[sheawyatt]

YES! :D
Set your awful 17-40 free! :D
Set It Free Brother!:D
Set It Free!:D

...pssst...

:cool: PM me for the Adress of my household recycle bin for proper disposal of this potentially dangerous item!
:pWouldn't want that sharp metal and glass bits mucking up the environment would we!

Gorgeous Image By The Way!

Richard

Ha ha, the 17-40 will always have a spot in my bag, unless I eventually upgrade to the 16-35II.

Thanks to everyone for the kind words about the previous shot. I haven't been out shooting in something like a month due to weather and work load, but hopefully I'll be able to post a few more here soon.

[Scuff]

Here is one from a couple of days ago.....

To give a strong sense of space around this historic unfinished building, I shifted the TS-E 24mm nearly all of the way up, thus placing the structure low in the frame.

346974