Good points SB, but I'm not sure it adds up to a very compelling argument. Plus the very shallow depth of focus you get with shorter focal lengths, and the physical/mechanical restrictions of the short back focus distance, make T&S lenses more of a luxury for DSLRs than the necessity they are for large format cameras.
Shadowblade wrote in post #11159162
Tilting the sensor gives you the same DOF effects as tilting the lens - you're basically changing the way the plane of focus intersects with the sensor plane, and you can do that by either moving the plane of focus (adjusting the lens) or by moving the sensor plane. Same with shift - you can either move the image circle (adjusting the lens) or you can move the sensor within the static image circle.
For DoF effects, you need to tilt the lens relative to the subject plane, so you always need a larger image circle and therefore a specific lens designed for that. It therefore makes sense to put the necessary movements in the lens.
No shortage of DOF? There's *always* a shortage of DOF if you're shooting landscapes - generally there's something in the foreground you want to keep in sharp focus, but you also want the rest of the scene in sharp focus. If you stop down to f/16 to achieve this, you're running into diffraction limits. If you can shoot at f/8, you're much better off.
With 24mm on full frame, at f/11 DoF extends from 3ft to infinity. That's enough for most folks. At f/16 it's from 2ft. Diffraction is bearable at f/16 I think, compared to the potential loss of sharpness by using the very edge of a T&S lens' image circle, not to mention the vignetting they suffer.
Sure a T&S lens is a nice option to have, even at £1000, but given the choice, I would generally rather shoot landscapes with my 17-40L - easier to use and zoom flexibility.
Converging verticals can be corrected in postprocessing, but this sacrifices both IQ (since you're interpolating the missing pixels) and width (since stretching the pixels to correct the verticals is essentially cropping off part of the photo and magnifying the rest to fill the gap).
For the level of correction available on a T&S lens, the reduction in image quality by correcting in post is effectively invisible. Not to mention the downsides of T&S image quality mentioned above. And with the PP option, you can go much further than any lens can, if you want to.
I've seen very effective use of a TS-E 24 with 1.4x TC for group photos, which aren't just the normal, boring row of people standing square in front of the camera. Using the tilt movement, the line of people needn't be square to the camera - you can arrange the crowd along more pleasing diagonal lines, etc., maintaining a shallow depth of field and background blur, while keeping everyone in sharp focus. Using a combination of tilt and shift, you can stand above people's heads for a group shot in depth, keeping everyone in focus using tilt, and using the shift movement to avoid the perspective distortion which would result from aiming the camera down at the crowd, like a regular lens.
I wouldn't mind seeing a TS-E 40 f/2.8L being developed just for group portraiture, for these reasons.
You mean a higher quality L version of the current 45 2.8? That would be nice, but the price would make the appeal even more specialist.
5D2, 17-40L, 50/1.8, 24-105L, 70-200L 4 IS, 580/270EX, Strato II/RF-602, Elinchroms