Is there a limitation of using wide angle lens versus tilt-shift?

That is, how much distortion can be corrected post processing? I ask because I've been interested in tilt-shift lenses but how much distortion can be corrected without using a tilt-shift?

Or is it the matter of spending the extra and saving time for say food or architectural photography?

Yes, there are limitations on what you can fix in post. Correcting for the converging lines in a tall builidng for example. If you correct in post it essentially squeezes the bottom of the image to compensate for the narrowing of the top. So now your image is triangular, having less pixels on the bottom than the top. You now have to crop to get back to your normal rectangular frame. Meanwhile the image that you bent is altered and it may or may not show in other elements of the image. If you use a tilt shift you're not altering pixels but correcting the field optically.

There are shots where you can do well correcting in post, but its not really a substitute for a tilt shift for architectural work.

For food and product work the tilt shift becomes essential because you are shifting the plane of focus on an angle, thereby keeping more of the subject from front to back in the depth of field. You cant replicate that easily in post unless you are stacking images.

Both food and architecture call for T/S lenses.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16741176
For food and product work the tilt shift becomes essential because you are tilting the plane of focus on an angle, thereby keeping more of the subject from front to back in the depth of field.

Fify. Let's at least keep the nomenclature consistent to keep from confusing people.

To the OP - what's keeping you from experimenting with corrections in post? Just try it. And yes, whether you're correcting with a T/S or in post, there are of course limits. In post, there's the issue of stretching pixels a little thin, as previously mentioned. In both instances, it's possible to "correct" to a point where it just doesn't look right, even if uprights are parallel. Just use your judgement.

I tried with sample images I took many years ago with Canon 10-22 @ 10mm in downtown Seattle but the distortion seemed very hard to correct if not difficult to achieve the balance. I did noticed the more I corrected the building to look straight, the bottom portion did get pushed down further. That's fiddling around with LR4.

While I do love the wide angle lens but wasn't sure of the exact limitation. I think I got my answer Now to start saving money for the tilt shift. Thanks guys!

gasrocks wrote in post #16741227
Both food and architecture call for T/S lenses.

for food, do you recommend the 17mm or the 24mm?

How big is your food...

DieselTech wrote in post #16741824
for food, do you recommend the 17mm or the 24mm?

The 90 is one of the best small and medium product lenses out there. Using a 17 or 24 would require you to get really close to your plates/whatever and introduce serious perspective distortion.

Aki78 wrote in post #16741549
I think I got my answer Now to start saving money for the tilt shift. Thanks guys!

I think you do. For instance these two shots were taken from the same location. By using shift I could point the camera parallel with the bridge and make it look like the shot was taken from across the river, which would have been impossible.

I don't know how one would perspective correct the first to the second, I guess it is possible, but it would be quite the stretch on the right.

With landscapes it is usually less obvious, but IMO enough that it is the main reason I got the TS-E.

Yes, get the tilt shift. It's an extremely valuable tool. Correction in software always degrades the image and of course makes the corrected areas look blurry. I don't know why more people don't have tilt shifts. They're awesome.

Adharr wrote in post #16759944
Yes, get the tilt shift. It's an extremely valuable tool. Correction in software always degrades the image and of course makes the corrected areas look blurry. I don't know why more people don't have tilt shifts. They're awesome.

I guess because theyre expensive and MF... Was the downside for me too but its quality and usefulness is so awesome well worth the pennies

I just picked up my first Tilt-Shift lens (a Canon TS-E 24 II) and even though I'm still earning how to use it, I love it! I wish I would have bought one sooner!

Bryan

davidfarina wrote in post #16761104
I guess because theyre expensive and MF... Was the downside for me too but its quality and usefulness is so awesome well worth the pennies

Of your two choices, I think it's pure expensive and very little MF. Tilts are rarely hand held while tilting the focal plane, so the MF isn't a big deal IMHO. The reason I don't own one is simply the cost. I think there are a lot of people who don't understand what they're capable of (it's so much more than parallel lines!).

davidfarina wrote in post #16761104
I guess because theyre expensive and MF... ...

...and because there are a lot of people who think T/S lenses are just for getting the "fake model/diorama" look.

Aki78 wrote in post #16741164
That is, how much distortion can be corrected post processing? I ask because I've been interested in tilt-shift lenses but how much distortion can be corrected without using a tilt-shift?

If you are talking about correcting perspective distortion in Post (ie like photoshop) Vs using shift, here is an example:

http://www.dpreview.co​m …ws/canon_24_3p5​_tse_c10/5
see section 5 applications: perspective corrections
this example discusses the limitations of doing it in post. It is simply much more effective to do the correction during capture: better resolution, better framing, no cropping.

I use TSE lenses quite often and usually combine tilt and shift. One cannot replicate the extended dof that tilt provides with software in post.
Mike K