Primer on Tilt-Shift lenses

B&H has an interesting review of Tilt-shift lenses in their recent newsletter. Its a decent read. Here is the link.

makes me miss shooting 4x5...

alternately, it makes me really want the TS-E 17mm L

bric-a-brac wrote in post #7535203
makes me miss shooting 4x5...

alternately, it makes me really want the TS-E 17mm L

Yeah I was excited about that too, but not the price tag

$2500 is a bit steep for me. I would have gotten it if if was the same price as the rest of the TS-E line. Even the 24 II doubled in price

Dchemist wrote in post #7534312
B&H has an interesting review of Tilt-shift lenses in their recent newsletter. Its a decent read. Here is the link.

Thanks for posting the link. A good article. I've been thinking about buying a TSE for two years now, but have never made the plunge ($$$).

I don't understand Canon's marketing gamble with this... you've got an economy that's hit real estate and architecture and building harder than perhaps anything else, and people's rate of saving money has gone way up in the last few months.

So is this really the right time for them to be marketing $2500 architectural lenses?

How much you wanna bet that their prices drop by 1/3 within a year.

DrPablo wrote in post #7541821
I don't understand Canon's marketing gamble with this... you've got an economy that's hit real estate and architecture and building harder than perhaps anything else, and people's rate of saving money has gone way up in the last few months.

So is this really the right time for them to be marketing $2500 architectural lenses?

How much you wanna bet that their prices drop by 1/3 within a year.

Some points come to mind:

1. It takes more than a few months to develop a lens. The market's subsidence has been more sudden than that.

2. Canon has a reputation for not leading the world in wide-angle optics.

3. Designing the widest wide-angle lens of them all, and pushing the state of the art in the process, dispels that reputation.

4. They probably can't make very many of these lenses in the first place, because of their mechanical complexity and required precision.

5. They have an obligation to their stockholders to sell what few they can make to the people willing to spend the most. This is the difference between price and cost.

6. The 17 in particular will do what no other lens made will do.

7. Marketing of stuff that's hard to sell usually requires more sophistication than marketing stuff that's easy to sell. Thus, I would not think the downturn in real-estate must necessarily have a long-term impact on the marketing of it.

8. The economy will probably improve long before these lenses reach the end of their design life. Lenses like this might stay in the line for decades, unlike the zoom-du-jour.

9. I'm already saving up for the 17.

10. I hope you're right that they lower the price after a few months.

Rick "recognizing that Canon's reputation for world-class telephotos is made as much by the $7600 600/4 as the $600 70-200/4" Denney

DrPablo wrote in post #7541821
I don't understand Canon's marketing gamble with this... you've got an economy that's hit real estate and architecture and building harder than perhaps anything else, and people's rate of saving money has gone way up in the last few months.

So is this really the right time for them to be marketing $2500 architectural lenses?

How much you wanna bet that their prices drop by 1/3 within a year.

Perhaps they're doing it solely for the people who like to make those weird pictures that look like miniatures.

Actually, if it lowers prices of the original model versions on the used market, it will be just fine by me. I've always wanted one and may now be able to afford it.

Rick, all good points, but of course a viable company needs to adapt to the market. I mean the whole knock on Kodak is that they didn't downsize their film operation in anticipation of the digital market -- so the problem wasn't that film was dying or irrelevant, the problem was that Kodak had an operation for a market that no longer existed.

I'm sure all the factors you mention are true, but companies compete with each other based on value too. Even if there is no other 35mm format 17mm shift lens, its value to people will always be evaluated with its cost in mind.

My sense is that Canon has certain market projections, and have optimistically priced this lens in order to feel out demand.

DrPablo wrote in post #7542397
My sense is that Canon has certain market projections, and have optimistically priced this lens in order to feel out demand.

Which was exactly my point. Why does that make it poor business?

I see this lens as a "halo" lens, in the same way that the Corvette was Chevrolet's "halo" vehicle. Canon have others, too, of course, but mostly in the telephoto and zoom end of the range.

Consider how the price fits in the market. The 17 with all its movements is more expensive than the plain Zeiss 21mm Distagon, but not extraordinarily so, and it's much less expensive than the 21mm Elmarit-M. It's only a little higher than the 28mm PC Super Angulon. Canon is clearly targeting the people who would consider those lenses instead of the 17 or the 24, but to do it they have to deliver the optical goods.

I'm sure they are also trying to keep high-end pros from going to medium-format (including medium-format view cameras), as prices for digital backs for those cameras continue to drop.

Finally, I think more and more serious amateurs, many of whom are prepared to spend far more than professionals (and who probably outnumber professionals, at least non-wedding professionals), will begin to see the value of lenses with movements. The B&H article is an example of that.

Rick "who already has tilt-shift capability at 24, 45, and 55, and tilt capability at ten other focal lengths" Denney

If you can stand to crop the final result, you can just shoot with a wider lens, keeping the cam square to the target as possible, & then cropping the good part of the image out. Not an elegant solution as having the right glass, but it's workable.