Trying to avoid the 17/4

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Dear Photo Nutters :-),</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Lately I have been bitten hard by the TS bug. I recently bought two M645 Mamiya lenses (35/3.5 and 120/4 macro) and a Mirex TS adapter and am having great fun with them. Trouble is, I now want TS in a wider FL. As the 35/3.5 is the widest FL in the M645 Mamiya range that means just one thing: Canon. More specifically, the 17/4. I am focusing on that lens as I am in the APS realm now (40D) and will probably stay there (7D).</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Stitching pictures for panorama pictures currently does not interest me. Shifting up or down will still be narrower than my 10-22. That means that the only benefit I'll get from it is when I tilt it, right?</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">I am not a die hard landscape shooter. On the contrary. I mostly shoot portraits and macro. In fact, the 10-22 is my least used lens. Therefore, paying so much money just for the tilt feature seems outrageous to me. It seems to me that the only true benefit I will get from it is if I go FF. Even on 1.3X it is narrower than my 10-22.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Any thoughts?</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>FWIW, Shifting also gain mega pixel hence possible better larger print size. Can save a little time from not moving the tripod or able to. Save the headache from reading/figuring out about the nodal point. I don't have one but if I do, IMHO a 17 * 1.6 shift lens is better then a 17 full frame lens. 17mm tiliting is too much thinking prior use for me.</p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Printing and tripod usage are things I rarely do.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>If you rarely shoot with a tripod, you have NO use for the tilt function of this lens. Focusing with tilt is something that is not a quick and easy thing, it requires great precision. You can't do it with the viewfinder with any great deal of accuracy, it requires careful iterative focusing steps while using live view at max magnification. It would result in slightly increased sharpness through the plane of focus and/or greater DOF. However, with a crop sensor camera and a 17mm focal length lens, you already have so much DOF at f/11 there's really no need to tilt.</p>

<p>The people who really are excited about this lens are people who have a need for the rise/fall/shift function for perspective correction in architectural shooting and interiors. I haven't seen much buzz about the tilt function.</p>

<p>Having spent quite a bit of time with a view camera, trust me on this.... :-)</p>

 

<p>I'd skip it. The APS-C format is much smaller than the Mamiya, so you don't really need tilt to extend DOF because at f/11 and 17mm you already have plenty.</p>

<p>Besides, focusing with tilt is tricky - requires live view, max magnification and a tripod.</p>

<p>Wow. Don't use a tripod. Don't print. Shoot portraits and macro. Don't do landscape.</p>

<p>It is really very hard for me to understand how the 17mm TS would have that much utility in your photography.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Wow. Don't use a tripod. Don't print. Shoot portraits and macro. Don't do landscape.</p>

<p>It is really very hard for me to understand how the 17mm TS would have that much utility in your photography.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>What exactly are you wanting to do with the T/S lens in your portraits and macro shots? If it's primarily lens shifts - and you rarely print, so maximum resolution isn't an issue - you could just keep the camera level with your 10-22mm and crop. If you want to swing the focus plane with tilts, for differential focus effects, you could look into trying out a lens baby for much less money. The differential focus of tilts is least effective with wide angle lenses obviously due to the increased depth of field.</p>

<p>You mention that your 10-22mm is your least used lens, but that you will get a benefit from the 17mm T/S if you go to full frame to be able to get wider angles (your 10-22mm is still a touch wider on a 1.6 crop than the 17mm on a full frame). The issue seems a little confused to me... Maybe you could be more specific about the kind of images you feel you are unable to make (with your current gear and post processing) and I'm sure some folks here will have suggestions about how you might achieve that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with G. Dan M. above. TS lenses are designed for precison use on a tripod mostly for landscapes and architecture. For hand held usesor for portrait and macro I would have thought the 17/4 TS was way over the top and maybe one or two lens babies might be more fun. And less cash.</p>

<p>I can live without a TS lens but I'd miss a tripod and would find little reason to shoot if I couldn't print my creations. Matting, framing and hanging it is part of the fun, not to mention sharing with those in the office or gallery where it's seen.</p>

<p>To extend the discussion a bit...</p>

<p>1. Apologies for the double-post above. I had a network problem while I was posting.</p>

<p>2. I always wonder why folks concern themselves with really high-end and specialized gear (like the 17mm TS) that is designed to largely optimize potential image quality (e.g. TS to tilt the plane of focus, etc.) when the end result will just be on-screen jpgs, often of fairly small sizes. Frankly, at small jpg sizes it won't matter at all* whether you shoot with a 1Dsm3/5D2 and the "best" lens available, a XT with a kit lens, or even a decent P&S like the G11 or similar - all will produce IQ that will be essentially indistinguishable at those sizes.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>* I acknowledge that if one uses the TS function to create something really unusual - not just improve focus - that this <em>could</em> be apparent in a small format. I guess if you do a lot of professional architectural work that is used on web sites and which requires 17mm... but then I'd expect you to be both using a tripod and generating IQ that _could_ be printed... I'm trying to imagine the extremely limited circumstances in which the 17mm version would be very useful for such stuff - possible, but...</p>

<p>For your interests, forget the 17/4 TS-E. Really forget about if you do not intend to use it on full frame. You must have something more pressing to spend $2300 USD on!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you rarely shoot with a tripod, you have NO use for the tilt function of this lens. Focusing with tilt is something that is not a quick and easy thing, it requires great precision. You can't do it with the viewfinder with any great deal of accuracy, it requires careful iterative focusing steps while using live view at max magnification. It would result in slightly increased sharpness through the plane of focus and/or greater DOF. However, with a crop sensor camera and a 17mm focal length lens, you already have so much DOF at f/11 there's really no need to tilt.</p>

<p>The people who really are excited about this lens are people who have a need for the rise/fall/shift function for perspective correction in architectural shooting and interiors. I haven't seen much buzz about the tilt function.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> On the contrary. I guess I haven't made myself clear. The tilt function is the only thing I'm sure to miss if I won't buy it. The shift function can be compensated via the wider angle of the 10-22. Also, I found handheld focusing very easy with LV. Exposure is spot on as well. No need to lock exposure before tilt/shift.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Wow. Don't use a tripod. Don't print. Shoot portraits and macro. Don't do landscape.<br /> It is really very hard for me to understand how the 17mm TS would have that much utility in your photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Voice of my head.....</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What exactly are you wanting to do with the T/S lens in your portraits and macro shots?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/797155/">Here is a macro example</a> and <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/823577">here is a portrait example</a> .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe you could be more specific about the kind of images you feel you are unable to make (with your current gear and post processing) and I'm sure some folks here will have suggestions about how you might achieve that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wide angles with either shift or tilt. Buildings and stuff. As I understand, my 10-22 can do better in the shift area so tilt is the only thing left.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have been using my TS-E 24mm handheld following the advice given <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml">here</a> and making use of the supplied tables for tilt with good results.</p>

<p>However, given your intended use and the fact you have a crop-sensor camera, you won't be able to take advantage of its full potential. Putting a wide-angle TS-E lens on anything but a FF body is a bit of a waste anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/797155/" target="_blank">"Here is a macro example</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/823577" target="_blank">here is a portrait example</a> ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, tilting the focal plane to draw attention to a <strong>narrow area</strong> is another thing. But why would you want an ultra-wide angle for this, which, even when used wide open, won't render out-of-focus areas very blurry?</p>

<p>I'd say, you can produce this kind of effect easier and cheaper in Photoshop.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK, tilting the focal plane to draw attention to a <strong>narrow area</strong> is another thing. But why would you want an ultra-wide angle for this, which, even when used wide open, won't render out-of-focus areas very blurry?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>You might also try the much less expensive but fully functional for your purposes previous-generation 24mm TS.</p>

<p>I see... you want to use tilt for creative shallow DOF, not to enhance DOF for maximum front to back sharpness. That's a VERY different approach and certainly doable. All you'd need to do is throw it to maximum tilt and then focus for your intended location. (vs the precise focus/tilt/refocus/retilt/refocus/retilt process required for maximizing DOF through Scheimpflug)</p>

<p>I would recommend getting the 45 mm TS/E lens instead of the 17mm. The 45mm would be an ideal portrait length on a 40D or 7D. It would also double as a good macro lens, especially with adding an extension tube. It's wickedly sharp and very well regarded, and it costs roughly 40% of what the 17mm would cost. Plus, if you're approaching this as a project or a phase in your photography, the 45mm is likely to cost you much less to own for a year than the 17mm. You can easily buy the 45mm used and sell it for no loss in a year, where the 17mm could cost you $500+ if you bought it new and resold it after it's more fully available in the market and the price has settled down.</p>

<p>Yakim,</p>

<p>You have an itch, scratch it. Get the lens, if you love it you will realise the value of it. If it doesn't live up to your hopes and financial commitment then sell it, you will loose a few hundred dollars, no more. That is like renting for a few weekends.</p>

<p>you most likely don't NEED it but you really REALLY want it! I mean really......<br>

(the voice in all our heads)</p>

<p>Yakim,<br>

It's still not clear why you want a TS lens. As several others have said, the most common application for a 17 mm length, even with APS-C, is the prevention of converging parallel lines, and you've indicated that this wouldn't be of much use to you. It's possible to use tilt with a lens that wide, but you need to be doing some pretty extreme near/composition for the tilt to be of much benefit. This isn't to say that such situations don't arise—see, for example, <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00UXL1">this thread</a> , which involved a PC-E 24 on a D700, and would be comparable to what you'd get with a 17 on APS-C. But you've also indicated that you seldom do landscapes, so I'm not sure I see the benefit there, either.</p>

<p>Although you didn't mention it, perhaps you're interested in selective focus for portraits. Some great work has been done with this, and has been discussed in this forum. But there also seems to be a fascination with “tilt-shift” (whatever it may be) for its own sake, and I think that novelty will fade before too long. In any event, if you want selective focus for portraits, you'd probably be much better off (and much money ahead) with either the 45 mm or 90 mm TS lens.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with TS lenses—I've had three of them for years, and find them invaluable in many situations. But I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture, using tilt and shift in the conventional manner. I also almost always use a tripod; I wouldn't say it's impossible to set tilt handheld, especially if you set it to the max for selective focus, but trying to maximize sharpness handheld would seem to be adding an unnecessary obstacle.</p>

<p>As I have said here many times: I can't see getting a TS lens just because it may be cool. Get one because it solves a specific problem you're having with what you currently have. Otherwise, I'd probably avoid scratching the itch unless you have a lot of extra scratch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's still not clear why you want a TS lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Because I like the TS effect. And especially the T part of the equation. I can play with DoF in ways I can't with a normal lens.</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">I would recommend getting the 45 mm TS/E lens instead of the 17mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I won't be getting the 45TS or 90TS because (a) Their FL is close to what I currently have and (b) If I ever be interested in these FLs, the Mamiya versions are much cheaper.</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">You have an itch, scratch it.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">you most likely don't NEED it but you really REALLY want it! I mean really......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">You guys are not helpful at all. I am trying to resist this urge..... :-(</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>yeah, it's a real shame that the Mamiya 645 system doesn't have a lens wider to use than the 35mm with that Mirex TS adapter on my 5D. guess I'll just have to wait until I get the bucks to buy Canon's 24mm TS. I hear ya on that one Yakim.</p>

<p>Yakim, I'm trying to be helpful! :-)</p>

<p>I'd resist this urge if I were you. Here are several reasons:</p>

<ol>

<li>If you really want to try the selective focus business you can certainly do that with the older 24mm TS - it will be great for that - and the cost is way lower. (You could even look up one of those really interesting Russian TS lenses...)</li>

<li>Duplicating the focal range of your existing lenses really isn't the issue. I'd argue that for most people the least useful TS FL is going to 17mm. Again, trying to "be helpful," I'd argue that it isn't focal length that defines your choice here - it is the TS feature set. Rather than worrying about whether you already have 24mm covered, think about that a) the most useful FL for doing TS, and b) the fact that you don't have TS covered.</li>

<li>Probably the main use for the 17mm TS is architecture - e.g. tilting the plane of focus and dealing with converging perspective lines. Doesn't sound like that is what you are trying to do.</li>

<li>You actually can do a reasonable approximation of the narrow focus trick in Photoshop in many cases - try it.</li>

</ol>

<p>Dan,<br>

Photography Equipment Lust Purchase Avoidance Counselor</p>

<p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<p> </p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr">Hi Dan,</p>

<p dir="ltr">I always appreciate your advices, even in the rare times that I don't agree with them. Regarding the old 24TS, I thought about it but hesitated because the actual difference is 56mm to 38mm. I'm not sure how significant it will be. I wish I could try it in person but these lenses are extremely rare in Israel.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Trying it in PS is a good idea but (a) I have very little PP knowledge and (b) I work on Linux.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">I really like your signature. The one I have at home is not so effective...... :-)</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p>I don't think the tilt effect with a 17mm lens on a APS-C body is particularly compelling. The DOF is not shallow enough IMHO. Searching Flickr I found this example.</p>

<p><a href="

<p> </p>