Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?

[kaihp]

I've been looking at the tilt/shift lenses for some time, and the ability to change the focus wedge is appealing to my geeky side. As usual, googling for which tilt/shift lenses are used for what, is just as futile as trying to drink from a firehose

I guess that the 17mm and 24mm are primarily used for architecture and landscape work, and the 90mm for products (and that miniature effect). But what about the 45mm?

Since I am mostly thinking to use selective focus (tilt), I presume that the 45mm and 90mm are more obvious tools. However, since I already have the 1.4x and 2x (MkIII) extenders in, one option could be to use an extender with the 24mm, allowing me to dabble in architectual shots as well..

Looking at the local 2nd hand market, it seems that there are a bunch of 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm available for reasonable cost, but which focal length would be the obvious choice?

I have zooms in the similar focal length areas, but no primes yet. I'm (also) tempted to get the 100mm L-macro too, but that's a seperate topic.

Edit: I'm shooting on a FF camera (5D3).

 

[eml58]

Keep in mind when making that decision that ably the newer MkII 17mm & 24mm are in fact 'L' Lenses, the older build 45 & 90 are not.

There are differences between the two, there's an expectation that quite soon Canon will upgrade the 45 & 90, so you may want to hold on your decision for a while, but with Canon lately you may also want to ignore that & decide which of the current 17 & 24 suits your needs best.

I have both & use mostly the 17, both are excellent, very very sharp Lenses, there's a learning curve primarily in setting maximum focus, but there's some very good tutorials by both Canon & others that will help you there.

I use the 17 mostly for inside buildings, but also as a Landscape outside, the 24 mostly for outside buildings & again, Landscape.

The 24 is probably the Lens best to buy first, no issues setting this Lens up with Filters, I use the Lee Filters.

The 17 you will need to go to something like the Wonderpana arrangement which is what I use, works just fine & allows me to then use my Lee Filters on the 17.

 

[DominoDude]

Are you sure that the TS-lenses can take TC's? If I remember correctly extension tubes are ok, but not teleconverters.

100% certain. All Canon TS-E's take both 1.4 and 2x TC's.

Ok, good! I stand corrected. Will remove the post to save us some clutter. Thanks!

 

[privatebydesign]

I would recommend the MII 24mm, both 24mm are L's but the MkII is considerably better both in IQ and functionality.

It will give you more "selective focus" control than the 17, it takes standard sized filters, with a 2XTC it will go to 48mm so you get even more selective focus. Also if you can stitch you will get the fov of the 17 at much higher quality too.

I have the 17 and use it a lot, but I need the fov in one shot.

The 45mm is a comparative dog, it desperately needs upgrading. If you want to play on the cheap the 90 is the only other one I would recommend, the IQ is very high and for product work and it is very fine, it works well with extension tubes too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Are you sure that the TS-lenses can take TC's? If I remember correctly extension tubes are ok, but not teleconverters.

100% certain. All Canon TS-E's take both 1.4 and 2x TC's.

Ok, good! I stand corrected. Will remove the post to save us some clutter. Thanks!

Since it's still here (sort of), I'll add that the extenders are physically compatible, but the camera won't know they're there, so the aperture is reported incorrectly in the EXIF (not that it matters much).

 

[Jim Saunders]

Anyone try the Schneider 2.8/50? It it expensive, heavy, and who knows about filters but I think it is the right length for a job I have in mind. I expect it is a lens where I can do well enough on resale to make it cheaper to own briefly rather than rent.

Jim

 

[Random Orbits]

The 17 and 24 TS-Es have two rotations, so the shift and tilt directions can be decoupled, which is really nice. The 45 and 90s don't have this.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 17 and 24 TS-Es have two rotations, so the shift and tilt directions can be decoupled, which is really nice. The 45 and 90s don't have this.

Well, they sort of do. But you have to remove four screws from the mount end, rotate the shift section, then put the screws back in. It's a little easier to just push the lever and rotate on the L lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

The 17 and 24 TS-Es have two rotations, so the shift and tilt directions can be decoupled, which is really nice. The 45 and 90s don't have this.

Well, they sort of do. But you have to remove four screws from the mount end, rotate the shift section, then put the screws back in. It's a little easier to just push the lever and rotate on the L lenses.

But it goes much deeper than that, the 24 MkI, 45 and 90 can only have their tilt and shift axes either parallel or at 90º to each other, and as Neuro points out is is a screwdriver job to do it; on the other hand the 17 and 24 MkII can have the tilt and shift axes set at any angle between them, this allows compounded movements the like of which could only be had with field cameras and similar prior to this.

 

[ejenner]

I use the 17mm for landscapes with both a 1.4TC and 2xTC. I could really do with a 45mm, but the old one is just not good enough to be worth it for me (I don't shoot at 45-90mm all that much).

So I would go with the 24 and plan to use it with TCs until Canon comes out with a new 45mm. I don't know how the 24 + 2xTC would compare to the 45mm IQ wise, but having looked closely at the 45mm I would suspect it would actually be pretty close if not a bit better.

 

[Antono Refa]

There are differences between the two, there's an expectation that quite soon Canon will upgrade the 45 & 90, so you may want to hold on your decision for a while, but with Canon lately you may also want to ignore that & decide which of the current 17 & 24 suits your needs best.

It is been expected to happen soon for nearly 5 years, so unless one has a while to wait, maybe one shouldn't.

 

[kaihp]

Thanks for all the comments, I really appreciate the collective knowledge and wisdom here.

Keep in mind when making that decision that ably the newer MkII 17mm & 24mm are in fact 'L' Lenses, the older build 45 & 90 are not.

There are differences between the two, there's an expectation that quite soon Canon will upgrade the 45 & 90, so you may want to hold on your decision for a while, but with Canon lately you may also want to ignore that & decide which of the current 17 & 24 suits your needs best.

Indeed. I stopped waiting for the 7D2 two years ago and bought the 5D3, as an example. But the point about the independent rotation of tilt & shift is duly noted.

I would recommend the MII 24mm, both 24mm are L's but the MkII is considerably better both in IQ and functionality.

It will give you more "selective focus" control than the 17, it takes standard sized filters, with a 2XTC it will go to 48mm so you get even more selective focus.

The 45mm is a comparative dog, it desperately needs upgrading.

Hmmm. Using TDP's ISO charts to compare a 24mm L II + 2x TC with the 45mm, and there the 24mm+2xTC are quite soft in the center (even when comparing f/7.1 vs f/2.8 ). Stopping the 45mm down to f/5.6 or f/8 makes it sharper all around.
What am I missing here?

The 90mm blows the 45mm out of the water, optically. Especially if you put the 2x TC on the 45mm, it gets horrible.

As for the price, the 45mm and 90mm are in the 5.000-6.100DKK range (USD870-1.060), whereas the 24L MkII is 9.500DKK (USD1.650).

Since noone have objected to my statement about 17mm & 24mm = architecture and 90mm = product shots, I presume this is right. I guess the addition is now "45mm = The Dog, avoid it at all cost" ;D

 

[Random Orbits]

...

Since noone have objected to my statement about 17mm & 24mm = architecture and 90mm = product shots, I presume this is right. I guess the addition is now "45mm = The Dog, avoid it at all cost" ;D

It really comes down to what you want to use it for. The TS-Es can be used in many types of photography, so it is up to the user to decide which one(s) work for him. Tilting to minimize the focal zone can by done handheld, but tilting to maximize the focal zone is usually done on a tripod and checking mutiple spots in the frame with liveview. Shift can done handheld as well.

As others have noted, the TS-E 24 is a good one for landscapes, and you can add a 1.4x TC in a pinch and not degrade the quality too much. Many use tripods for landscape and architectural photography anyway, so the added complexity of tilting and shifting is not much of an additional burden. Same thing with macro and product shots. The 45 is interesting because it is not one that fits in one of those categories. And it falls into the "normal" range where people tend to be prominent subjects. You can imagine tilting for a group shot where the people are not in the same "normal" image plane or tilting to partially correct or stress shots from below/above.

So I guess my recommendation is to choose one that fits with how you intend to use it the most. Getting that right will increase your satifisfaction with using TS-Es.

 

[NancyP]

Why TS? Are you finding that specific images require focus stack image capture and post processing blending? Are you trying to get everything in the image in focus? Or are you looking for selective focus? Large subject? Macro subject? In general, the wide angle TS lenses are used by people who want everything in the image in focus (usually a landscape/architecture shot), and find that the only way to get close foreground and infinity simultaneously in focus in a single capture is to tilt, because even f/22 or f/32 doesn't provide enough depth of field. Selective focus aficionados will naturally want a telephoto lens with tilt, because you can't get pronounced out of focus areas juxtaposed with in-focus areas with a wide angle lens, tilt or not.

All TS lenses have a large image circle. If you have any decent old medium format lenses sitting around, you could slap a TS or plain shift adapter on them and use on a Canon FF camera. Zoerk is one well-regarded brand. They tend to pair their TS adapter with a Rodenstock or Schneider lens.

 

[mackguyver]

I'll add a few thoughts - the 24mm II is definitely the sharpest, but the 17mm + 1.4x III is pretty close, when stopped down to f/8 or so. The 24 II takes the 1.4x extremely well and the 2x almost as well.

If you plan to shoot buildings, the 24mm is a bit long for anything over about 4 stories and for most interiors. The 17 is great, but alas, no simple ND or C-PL support, which may or may not be an issue for you.

I have only used the 45 & 90 briefly, but the 90 seemed quite sharp and well-suited for near-macro and portrait work.

Take a look at these videos from Canon - they are very well-done and may help with your decision:
Tilt-Shift Lens Basics with Vincent Laforet

 

[kaihp]

@NancyP:
As I said in the first post, it's the selective focus I want to work with, so I'm leaning towards the longer focal length end (90mm). The only thing going against this is that I don't have a studio, so space is limited ... which means that 90mm could be too long

Thanks for the idea about the MF lens, but since I've never used anything bigger than 35mm film, this is not an option to me.

@Mackgyver:
I'm not sure if lack of ND and CPL is a problem for me, but it's worthwhile to remember. I already have 82mm ND & CPL, so this is in favour of the 24L II.
Thanks for pointing out the Vince LaForet videos, they are quite good. I just went back and re-watched Episode 3.

 

[mackguyver]

kaihp, the 17mm is a little more versatile in that way in that you can use the 1.4x to get close to the 24 II performance. The Wonderpana system works well (according to privatebydesign and others) for ND & CP-L use, too. OTOH, it's not great for selective focus, if that's your primary use. The 24 works decently well for that, but the 45 and 90 are best.

 

[Hector1970]

If you are buying the Tilt-Shift for creative blur or the "Tilt" effect you'd be better of doing it in Adobe CS6 or CC.
It's probably more effective.
I have the 24 TS-E II and I love it. I use it quite a bit and it makes me feel like a real photographer but I probably get better shots from my 17-40mm.
I think the camera is better at autofocus than an eye is at manual focus - just my opinion that may be factually incorrect :. I have excellent eye-sight and it's easy to have an out of focus shot on a manual lens.
If you over tighten the screws on a tilt shift you could head for big trouble.
If you don't tight enough the lens will drop and go out of focus.

The advanage of manual is it slows you right down and makes you think.
A TSE is a difficult lens to manage correctly.
It's not self explanatory.
Generally very little tilt is required to get that big depth of field look.

I opted for the 24 mm because I could add Lee Filters.
No regrets. I think Extreme Shift left to extreme shift right is approx the equivalent of 19mm (again could be technically incorrect :-[- its pretty wide anyway)

It looks great as an lens.
Bulbous lens of the 17mm make me more nervous for some reason.

 

[BL]

I really like the 24 since it turns into a versatile, super close focussing 38mm on my crop factor M

truth be told, checking for planes of focus is soooo much better with a touch screen.

 

[kaihp]

Thanks to everyone for their input.

I ended up picking up the 90mm. I'm looking forward to learning how to use this beast over the winter