Perspective Control Lenses since 1971 and counting

<p><strong>Perspective Control Lenses - since 1971 and counting</strong> <br /><br />This is another of my self-indulgent "personal histories", but as a retired academic I find it difficult to contain myself. There are other reviews here of people who seem just as thrilled with it as I am (e.g., http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UxiK )<br /><br />To sum this all up, sometimes being "PC" is good. <br /><br /><strong>History & Background</strong><br />Some time ago, I posted on my acquisition of a Nikon perspective control lens around 1971 ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YizA ). It was the lens that I needed. So that determined the camera body to get to use it on - My first Nikon camera, a Nikkormat FTn. I went on to other Nikon bodies, but with the constant that one of my most valued lenses was still that PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 lens. It had shift only and 35mm was a little on the long side, but it served my (archaeological and architectural) needs well.<br /><br /><em>Canon forum readers stay with me, I'll get there eventually.</em><br /><br /><br />Later, Nikon released a 28mm version, and Canon actually released their (or anyones) first tilt and shift (TS) lens -- the TS35mm f/2.8 in 1973 for the new FD mount ( http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/fisheye-35/ts_35_28.html ). I would have considered that if it had been available in 1971; but there was no way that I was going to switch systems for the tilt feature, which I saw (not altogether correctly, I admit) as being somewhat superfluous for architectural/archaeological work.<br /><br />Time passed, and I acquired a nice bunch of Nikkor lenses. Then, in 1977 an event occurred which would be familiar to Canon FD users, but seldom mentioned by those who tout Nikon "backward compatibility". Nikon changed the mount to "Automatic Indexing" (AI) and all of my old lenses were gradually becoming unusable on newer Nikon bodies unless I had them modified. Some of you may have noted that I can be a little stubborn sometimes, just a little, and there was just something about chopping up my old lenses that did not appeal. So I stuck with cameras of the F2 and earlier era. They did everything I needed, so why switch?<br /><br />The answer was that on a to-be-last film-shooting trip, my film had been slightly fogged, I don't know whether it was the X-ray machines or Cosmic radiation, The fogging was very light - never would have been noticeable from prints. But it was there.<br /><br />This was literally Nature's Warning Sign to me that it was time to go digital. So in late 2004 I began to look for a digital camera. At that time, I couldn't find any list of what non-AI or even AI-modified non-AI would work on what Nikon digital bodies. [skipping over here story of money order to Transylvania…]<br /><br />Then I saw Bob Atkins' page on using non-Canon lenses on Canon digital cameras. The die was cast. I bought a Canon 20D and adapters. However, although I used the PC-Nikkor on the 20D, the 'crop-factor' made it an equivalent of a 56mm lens, not entirely useful for architectural photography. The other Nikkors I have, however, all worked nicely with TTL metering and all on the Canons, so I was pretty happy.<br /><br />But my PC-Nikkor -- having 'controlled my destiny' since 1971--pushed me to get a nice 5D so the lens would be wide enough.<br /><br />But our standards change, don't they? I looked longingly at the Canon TS-E 24mm ( http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ts-e/ts_e24_35l.html ). 24mm was significantly wider, but was the cost justifiable? I dithered. Then, mirable dictu, there was a new lens, the TS-E 17mm f/4 ( http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ts-e/ts_e17_f4l.html ). Not only was this one wide enough to meed all my needs, but it had many miraculous new features like the ability to turn the shift and tilt axes to cross- or parallel-settings.<br /><br />It was a little pricey, so I dithered some more. However, a rebate just kicked in and I figured that I'd better bite the bullet before I kick the bucket.<br /><br />I got it just days ago, and have only had the first blush of acquaintance with it, but so far I am more pleased than I have been with any lens I've got since the original PC-Nikkor.<br /><br /><strong>The Lens</strong><br />Here is the lens and its predecessor, the PC-Nikkor. While the PC-Nikkor was always all manual, aperture and focus, the TS-E lens has electronic control of aperture, and focus confirmation in the viewfinder. Very handy indeed. Much faster to shoot with than the old Nikkor.<br /><br /></p>

<div></div>

<p>The images below are on my Canon 5Dmkii, but another advantage of the 17mm is that it is wide enough that it makes this a very usable 28mm or so equivalent TS lens on an APS-C sensor camera, which I still use as well.<br /><br /><br />I went up to campus late yesterday to find some architecture to photograph. Here are some of the buildings on campus in one image just straight 17mm and the other with the shift feature dialed in. I was planning to go into the library, so these are all hand-held, no tripod. I've never seen much problem with this, although I have used a "grid-style" viewfinder screen wherever it was possible since 1971. <br />Here is a meeting/reading room in the library to show off the 17mm lens without adjustments.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>One question is whether it is really necessary to have a T/S lens these days. Can't it all be done in post-processing?<br>

Here are the first shot, unshifted, the middle picture corrected in Photoshop, and the bottom one done in the camera with the TS-E lens.</p>

<p>In looking at the full-size images, the shift done in the camera definitely wins out over the shopped one. no 'pulled pixels' etc.</p><div></div>

<p>This one of the tilt feature is not very obvious, especially at 700 pixels max. There is a definite difference in the full sized images.</p><div></div>

<p>These are examples of use of the TS-E lens in interior shots.<br>

These are again at my campus library. A staff member made me go get permission to shoot. I guess the concern is sparked by difficulties with police functionaries who were spying on students [how would this be so primitive as to actually involve photography, I wonder? I saw no one with an actual book, and there are more effective ways of getting into what people are doing on their computer, I would think.]</p>

<p>In any case, permission was soon granted. The top shot, unadjusted, the bottom with mostly shift adjustment.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Finally, an image I had posted on "Canon Thursday," in which I used both shift and tilt. Turns out to be more useful than I had thought all those years when I only had shift to use.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>In conclusion, I am really thrilled (does it show?) with my new toy.</p>

<p>Thank goodness I had bought it before I got the bill just now for the 60,000 mile service and new tires on my auto. :(<br /><br /><br>

I need to stock up on Kraft dinners, I guess.</p>

<p>At least I am doing my share for the economic recovery. :|</p>

I also like my 17 F4 and with care you can use the 1.4x TC to get a 24mm lens. By the way the new 24 TS MKII is also a

great lens but I could only afford one and went with the 17mm. I find that for most of the time I use it instead of my 16-35

F2.8 II which comes out a lot less these days.

<p>Thanks for putting together an interesting history - here are some of my experiences. I use both the 24mm TS-E (first version) and the 17mm TS-E - they really are wonderful lenses to work with, especially for church interiors. The 24mm TS-E / 40D combination I first used was not so very wide and I would often have to resort to a WA lens and then adjust in PS - however, for all but the most minor perspective adjustments, the resulting in images were degraded significantly (pulled pixels). One solution I came up with was to take a grid panorama, stitch it together and then make the perspective adjustments with this very much larger file. Here is a handheld shot (or rather a 3 x 2 grid) of Hawa Mahal - on a 16" wide print there is really no discernable image degradation where the largest adjustments were made.</p><div></div>

<p>This technique works well for virtually 2D shots like this, but proved very difficult for 3D structures, such as building interiors, because of parallax errors. Trying to stitch together grids and make corrections for both perspective and the distortions resulting from stitching together frames with parallax errors proved to be impractical. So next I played around with a panoramic head to avoid parallax errors - and that works quite well. Then the 5D2 was announced and that made my 24mm TS-E a reasonably wide-angle lens, although for church interiors with soaring ceilings it was not always wide enough. Soon after that the 17mm TS-E was announced and it is really an awesome lens.<br>

Of course, even 17mm may not always wide enough so the question is can you make a 2x2 grid using the shift for up and down, and the pano head for left to right? As long as you rotate about the nodal point (which is very close to the red ring) and you shift up and down by the same amount, then it works quite well. For some reason it is best to stitch the two shifted images together first and then stitch to 2 vertical panos together for the 2x2 grid. In the attached sample you can start to see fisheye distortions - but the close foreground plants show no parallax problems.<br>

I've not experimented much with the tilt function except for extending dof - but your example is interesting, I must investigate further....<br>

Good shooting with your new 17mm TS-E - I know you will have a lot of fun with it. Cheers, RickDB</p><div></div>

<p>JDM, that is the exact combo I have now. I switched back from Nikon to Canon after buying a used 17 TS-E a little over a year ago and just added the 35/2.8 PC a few months ago. Yes the PC really is a pain in the neck to use but it has been worth it and although I have not put it to a full test it seems extremely sharp which surprised me a bit.</p>

<p>I'd say that half the images I make with these lenses are shifted/stitched to provide 250 MB tiffs from my 5D II. It is a very cost effective way of getting digital medium format quality landscape/architectural shots.</p>

<p>I loved using the Nikon 14/2.8 for about 8 years but the inability to correct perspective drove me nuts even for landscapes. I gave up on 4x5 and my SA 65/8 to get the 17 TS-E and have never been more satisfied with a lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Just to state the obvious (that's about all I can contribute, lol):</p>

<p>With the above image the stiching software has it really easy; the lens is just "panning laterally" about the <em>single</em> broad canvas afforded by shift lens, capturing 3 images free of perspective change that would happen with a conventional lens, where you would have to rotate the camera.</p>

<p>Thanks, very interesting.</p>

<p>Thanks, JDM. I love indulging in your "self-indulgent personal histories."</p>

<p>By the way, have you ever had the chance to use the TS 35/2.8? I'm wondering how it compares optically to the PC-Nikkor, given their similar vintage. As an aside, I did some rough-and-ready handheld macro work with my pre-AI Micro-Nikkor-PC 55/3.5 (w/ compensating aperture) on my 5DII, and I must say the results were spectacular.</p>

<p>Do you mean the 45 TS? I'm never sure what I would do with these lenses for the price, since most people seem to spend most of the time taking shots that demonstrate how "useful" they are, but rarely show much aesthetic content. A bit like hi-fi buffs with their test records. They have a great recording function (showing an item "as it really is") but otherwise I think they trail behind most other lenses in general all round usefulness and considering their price they are low on my list.</p>

<p>Ah! envy! ENVY! I have never possessed a 35mm PC lens but for a number of years had a nice old 5x4 view camera which produced wonderful quality trannies. My favourite lens for architecture was a 65mm Super Angulon (divide by 3 to get the rough 35mm equivalent). So maybe the Canon 24mm TSE would be the one for me. Here is a shot of the Cutty Sark at Greenwich from a few years back taken with that 5x4 (MPP VII using the 65mm Super Angulon and an ND grad to bring down the brightness of the sky) with as much front rise as I could get.</p>

<p>But I sold the 5x4 LF gear a couple of years ago so am hankering after a tilt/shift lens again. <br>

<br /> Mmm .... 24mm TSE....</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I have never had the chance to shoot any shift or tilt and shift lenses other than these two, unfortunately. I would also be curious to know how they compare.<br>

In the end, there's probably nothing like a 4x5 view camera for the full program, but I am amazed by how well the TS-E 17mm does in the 35mm-format.</p>

<p>The PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 was and is a very useful lens. I found mine so good that I often used it as a copy lens on a stand with bellows.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you mean the 45 TS?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Robin, I mean the FD-mount TS 35/2.8, which JDM refers to in his history. By the way, JDM, my copy of the TS 35/2.8 is in the original FD mount; it's optically identical to the later version.</p>

<p>You're right. The TS35mm f/2.8 S.S.C in the old FD mount was also released in March, 1973 -- the same month as the 'new FD' mount TS35mm f/2.8.<br>

The link at the Canon Museum for the lens in the FD mount is http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fd/data/17-35/ts_35_28_ssc.html </p>

<p>According to the Museum site, the original cost of the S.S.C. version was rather more expensive. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>According to the Museum site, the original cost of the S.S.C. version was rather more expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I guess that means that my copy is more valuable then, eh?</p>

<p>There aren't a lot of the pre-EOS TSs on eBay at the time of writing, but in the small sample of sold items, the one New FD does seem to be slightly cheaper -- but the sample size (N=4) is too small for this to mean anything.<br>

They are being bought at US$500-600. Not a casual, "equal to <em>n</em> pizzas"* buy for me at any rate.</p>

<p>________<br>

* my way of rationalizing about how cheap the items I'm spending on really are....</p>

<p>I'm a little surprised that they're going so cheaply, given the fact that FD lenses have appreciated in value over the past few years. I guess tilt-shift lenses aren't as attractive as faster primes to mirrorless users and videographers.</p>

<p>My copy is truly mint, with its original box and packaging, and all its original accessories and literature, so perhaps it's worth more to a collector. Whether it is or not is moot, though, given that it's one of my FD lenses I that I don't ever plan on selling.</p>

<p>By the way, I like your pizza equation rationalization. I think I'm going to start using it myself; it might save me from some frivilous purchases...</p>

<p>BTW, it occurs to me that I may not have to pay for this lens since it's on the credit card, which probably won't come until after Dec. 12, the end of the world. If, on the other hand, the end comes on December 21, well, maybe the check won't clear.... ;)</p>

<p>Post-End-of-the-World Post<br>

Shucks, I've already paid for it. </p>

<p>You can't blame the Maya though, they never thought the end of a cycle was the end of time.</p>

<p>Only people who pose in front of the <em>Aztec</em> calendar stone and talk about <em>Maya</em> calendars would think anything like that. :)<br>

Failure to contextualize the data is not the least of the flaws of hypesters, hoaxters, and pseudoscientists</p>