17mm Tilt Shift

Anybody that owns one of these have any luck with the miniature effect? I use this lens for real estate and will have the chance to try this effect in January when I go on vacation. I heard that the 24 TS is much better for this. It won't break my heart if I can't do it with this lens but just thought I'd ask.

My feeling is that tilt shifts in the longer focal lengths are more used for miniatures. 45 or even the 90 gets used for that more than the 17 or 24. The longer focal length just works better for that effect I think. I rarely use the tilt function on mine as it's mainly an architectural lens for me (shifting for perspective correction), but when I do some tilted shots, they never create any miniaturization.

most important thing is to take the photo from a high vantage point. It gives the shot a perspective as if taken by a giant looking down on a miniature place.

also the 17mm will give you the miniature effect however you generally have more depth of field with 17mm in comparison to the 24mm, and 45mm. hence, the minimal depth of field helps to make your "miniature" place look as if it was shot with a macro lens with shallow depth of field.

David: Does that mean you prefer your non TS-E lenses when it comes to landscaping? I mean since you said you mainly (mostly?) use it for architectural photos. Please elaborate on this, because I'm still trying to decide if I should buy a tilt-shift or a new UWA-zoom for my landscaping. I've borrowed the TS-E 24 mm, and I do like it.. I'm just not sure "how much" I like it. lol.

Mike: like the others said, making miniature landscapes with the 17mm will be kinda tricky. It is not entirely impossible, but the effect will be kinda weak, compared to the 45 mm and 90 mm TS-E.

I haven't had any success with my TS-E doing miniatures - but I haven't tried that hard either. Reading David's comment above, it might be worth trying with a tc installed.

Osiriz wrote in post #15197409
David: Does that mean you prefer your non TS-E lenses when it comes to landscaping? I mean since you said you mainly (mostly?) use it for architectural photos. Please elaborate on this, because I'm still trying to decide if I should buy a tilt-shift or a new UWA-zoom for my landscaping. I've borrowed the TS-E 24 mm, and I do like it.. I'm just not sure "how much" I like it. lol.

Mike: like the others said, making miniature landscapes with the 17mm will be kinda tricky. It is not entirely impossible, but the effect will be kinda weak, compared to the 45 mm and 90 mm TS-E.

My TS-E 24 II has been my go-to landscape lens. That may change since I've just added the Zeiss 21 to my kit. I don't typically use the TS-E 17 for landscapes because it doesn't easily support filters. The new Fotodiox filter kit may be changing that situation, but it's still not as flexible as the Lee system that I use on the TS-E 24 II. When I'm seriously considering a new lens I look carefully through the images in the Lens Sample Archive and if you do that you'll see a lot more landscapes in the TS-E 24 II thread than you will in the TS-E 17.

Now I'm going to share my opinion about tilt-shifts, others will disagree, it's just the way I see things: Wide-angle tilt-shift lens are problem-solvers for architectural photography: they provide perspective correction. But, regarding landscapes, I don't see tilt-shifts solving any specific problems. Shifting isn't necessary and tilting the focal plane creates the blurring effect, which is good for a neat effect (which might result in miniaturization in the right context), but not needed, or even desired, for landscapes. So, in my opinion wide-angle tilt-shifts are architectural lenses that can also do landscapes. Switch to a Zeiss 21mm (or the new 15mm, or 2/25mm) and the situation is reversed: awesome landscape lenses that can also be used for architecture (albeit without perspective correction).

One reason the TS-E 17 might be a great landscape choice...it probably is the sharpest/finest lens in that focal length for Canon cameras. If you're looking for an ultra-wide it could be the best choice for that reason alone. The Zeiss 15mm might be sharper, but it vignettes more and costs a lot more.

And back on the subject of miniaturization, I'll make a few observations about the TS-E 45 and 90 lenses. If you look through the archive for those lenses (also take a look at image groups on Flickr) and you'll see far more full utilization of the shift movement. You'll see loads of miniaturization shots there. With the 17 and 24, the shift movement appears to be dominantly used, but with the 45 and 90 it seems the tilt movement dominates (or is at least used a lot more).

I am planning to add the Zeiss 15, and then I'll have the Zeiss 15, TS-E 17, Zeiss 21, TS-E 24, and Zeiss 35 and 100. I feel it will be a pretty complete kit for both architectural (mostly TS-E) and landscape (mostly Zeiss). Now I just need Canon to make me a 46.1 MP camera!

David Arbogast wrote in post #15201027
...But, regarding landscapes, I don't see tilt-shifts solving any problems....

You can tilt your plane of focus so that it is parallel with the ground. You can shoot wide open and still get massive the depth of field from MFD to infinity. No need to stop way down and risk getting blurred images due to high wind, etc. You only risk blurring out the sky. Which is not as big a deal as loosing focus on the land scape.

With the shift you can capture up to a 3:1 [on a crop, less on a full frame camera] panorama much easier than using a non shift lens. There are going to be some minor parallaxing errors. To remove all parallaxing errors then shift the camera the same amount as the lens, but in the opposite direction. That way your nodal entry point did not move.

As for the OP's question...sorry, I cannot help you with that. Typically those miniature shots are done from a higher ground. From what I have seen most shots look wide, but I could not tell if they are taken with a 17mm or a 45mm (for arguments sake). I would have to guess and say 24mm on a crop might be close.

AbPho wrote in post #15201060
You can tilt your plane of focus so that it is parallel with the ground. You can shoot wide open and still get massive the depth of field from MFD to infinity. No need to stop way down and risk getting blurred images due to high wind, etc. You only risk blurring out the sky. Which is not as big a deal as loosing focus on the land scape.

With the shift you can capture up to a 3:1 [on a crop, less on a full frame camera] panorama much easier than using a non shift lens. There are going to be some minor parallaxing errors. To remove all parallaxing errors then shift the camera the same amount as the lens, but in the opposite direction. That way your nodal entry point did not move.

The problem I've experienced with tilting the focal plane with landscapes is that the ground may be in perfect focus to infinity, but that only works if the ground is flat and there are no tall elements in the scene...otherwise those taller things (trees, lighthouses, hills, mountains, etc.) will be outside the focal plane and be conspicuously blurry. Just as the sky will get blurry, anything projecting into the sky will likewise get blurred. And the blurring effect is far more pronounced in the photograph when tilting the focal plane than when leaving it perpendicular to the camera. I have tried this technique a number of times, and it has not proved useful for me. If you've had great success doing it, post some examples - I would really enjoy seeing them.

You make an excellent point regarding the planar projected panos that only tilt-shifts can do. I appreciate that point because it corrects my statement that tilt-shifts don't solve a specific problem with landscapes. The ability to create planar-projected panos is an excellent use with landscapes and not so helpful with architecture.

As I mentioned, I recommend reviewing images from each candidate lens to see how each lens is customarily used and to see each lens' unique rendering characteristics. So, the following are some links to image groups for each candidate lens on Flickr:

TS-E 17mm f/4L: http://www.flickr.com/​groups/canontse17mmf4l​/

TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II: http://www.flickr.com/​groups/1030703@N20/

Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm: http://www.flickr.com/​groups/distagon15mm/

Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21mm: http://www.flickr.com/​groups/distagon21mm/

Zeiss Distagon T* 2/25mm: http://www.flickr.com/​groups/distagon25mm-hs/

Thanks for sharing David. Very interesting info! I guess I'm gonna have to use my borrowed tiltshift a while longer before I make any decision.

If I decide to skip it, I will definitely wait for the 14-24L instead.. It should be out any time now, or at least before the sun burns out. That thing will hopefully be like the 14L, Zeiss 21 and 24L, in one and the same lens.

Cheers!

David Arbogast wrote in post #15201100
You make an excellent point regarding the planar projected panos that only tilt-shifts can do. I appreciate that point because it corrects my statement that tilt-shifts don't solve a specific problem with landscapes. The ability to create planar-projected panos is an excellent use with landscapes and not so helpful with architecture.

I use mine primarily to keep trees and other features straight. For me that is the #1 reason for getting the TE-S17mm, even over sharpness and definitely over tilt.

I do agree entirely with your assessment of using tilt in landscapes (at least in the 17-24mm range) - it can be good in certain very specific circumstances, but the promised infinite DOF is rather over simplified.

Following those flick-r links that David provided it looks like both the 17mm and 24mm TS-E can be used to get that miniature look.

AbPho wrote in post #15203781
Following those flick-r links that David provided it looks like both the 17mm and 24mm TS-E can be used to get that miniature look.

And a nice one got posted by aratj in the POTN lens archive today: https://photography-on-the.net …p=15202316&post​count=2455

An elevated camera position is key for miniatures.

So it can be done!!!!!! Thanks everyone for the input.

You are better off using a TS-E 24 for the miniature effect than the TS-E 17. The wider focal length increases the relative perceived DOF and the f4 max apaerture doesn't help either. The 24 is easier to achieve the results you are looking for. The 45 and 90 are even easier.