TS-E 45 for Portraiture - Bulbous nose risk?

[faysal]

<p>Simply put, on either FF or Crop (I should have the former soon enough and the latter I already have) is there a risk of bulbous noses when used for a head and shoulders shot? I've seen it for full bodies on the 5dII and it performs amicably, but I'm curious if I'll be risking it. Right now I'm not quite in the position to rent one (Iraq) and I'm trying to formulate whether or not I should pursue this lens.<br>

After discovering different ways to do tilt shift portraiture, I really want to invest in a lens capable of helping me out. The 24 seemed too wide and the 90 seemed to narrow, I figured the 45 would allow me to do head and shoulders as well as full bodies. <br>

I looked at some work at this site: http://www.benjhaisch.com/blog/ (no affiliation, I have no idea who these people really are, but I like a bit of their work)<br>

Anyhow, I looked at the site and I realized that I had really never considered a TS lens for what I wanted to achieve, and they seemed to do that and more. My concern is really with tighter shots.<br>

Thanks</p>

[scott_ferris]

It is a fine lens to use. Don't forget the 50mm was seen as the standard ff lens for the longest time. Much of Steve

McCurry's work is with a 50mm.

 

Like fisheyes and lens babies though it is easy to overdo it!

[paul_russell1]

<p>Just make sure your camera has live view. TS lenses are very critical. This isn't really what they were designed for, and there are cheaper ways to get a similar effect, the most obvious is a lensbaby composer, or even try free lensing an old manual 50mm<br>

The 45 and 90mm TS-E lenses are exceptionally sharp, and have very specialist uses like conventional portraiture and product photography, they will do this job admirably, but can't help but think this is over kill.<br>

Rent one first. Take a tripod. Take your time.<br>

Buy an old manual cheapo 50mm like an MD rokkor 1.7 or similar. Pennies on ebay. </p>

[joe_fikes]

<p>The bulbous nose has nothing at all to do with the lens. Really! The only thing that matters is your distance from the subject. If you'll maintain a distance of at least 5 or 6 feet from your subject you'll get really pleasing perspective and all the facial features will look right. It's true that a mild telephoto will frame those shots better than an 18mm lens will. In fact, a 45mm lens on a crop sensor camera will be wonderful. But the perspective is set by the distance from the subject, and not by the focal length of the lens.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Just don't try headshots and you should be fine.</p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>Why would you need a TSE lens for portraiture? I am just trying to figure this out, not saying bad about your choices.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>... and I was thinking when I read this post, "Wow, what a great application of a T/S -- very shallow DoF, while getting both eyes in focus!" But just for blurring out different parts of the image? Why not do that in post, if that's what you want?</p>

<p>A 45 on a crop should be on the problematic end of OK (or maybe on the OK end of problematic) for head and shoulders. I definitely wouldn't use that short a fl on a FF for head and shoulders, but some people do. If you have to have the T/S, then you're going to be much better off with the 90.</p>

<p>But why not use an 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 and apply some Gaussian blur? If you prefer a less Gaussian look (more like the bokeh a lens would create), there are some applications that do that (more or less).</p>

[pmind]

<p>I agree with Sarah with respect to using a 90mm instead of the 45mm, particularly with the 5dII; your working distance will be an important consideration as well. However, I would also note that the TS effect is very challenging to achieve (to my satisfaction) using post processing. I find it better to capture the effect in camera; but of course, that's not <em>easy</em> either!</p>

[faysal]

<p>Let me state that the focus of it would not be just head and shoulders but the full body shots and group pictures that would have more than one subject. (pun left in after proofreading) I also take a lot of landscape and cityscape shots so I figure it might help me keep a few of my multi-story subjects from tapering off. But, I like the idea of composing the shot with say the head and shoulders in focus, but the space above and below that gradually lost into a soft blur to create more of a stand out effect from the background. I do know how to do some of the editing in post, but it always appears to be a more unnatural of an effect than a lens can produce, and even if I can somehow hone my skills in the matter, I still would rather do more of the work on camera than in post (its just my preference, I still do post processing though).<br /> Now I've considered a lensbaby before, but I have seen the effect overdone a lot, and maybe that might have thrown me off from the product. I just got the feeling from the product that it was very simple to overdo it on the adjustments, which are also not as nicely arranged as how the canon has it. I like the idea of separate adjustment levers for tilt, shift, and rotation. I like the idea of a scale for them so I can attempt to handle adjustments a tad more "scientifically" than "let me twist that-a-one this-a-way". Also, from what I've seen, its difficult to get a sharp plane of focus, as in, i tend to see sharp circles of focus instead, and that's not the look I want to produce. It looks like someone took a sharp photo, picked up the blur brush on PS, set the hardness to 80, and the size to 500px and just left a small circle in focus. Also to my understanding, I would be carrying around discs to change the aperture on one. (To any lensbaby owners, please do not let my probable ignorance offend you)<br /> I'd like to share my method of tilt shifting in post process too, just to see if you guys see anything wrong with my method. I simply do this: Quick Mask>Gradient(white is in focus)>Regular Mask Mode>Lensblur/Gaussian Blur. <br /> My results vary, for portraits, not usually well. For cityscapes I have linked 2 of my own photos off my own website here, however, be warned they are a tad large.<br /> <a href="http://digitalroundabout.net/temp/ts/Tilt%20Shift%20Damascus.jpg">Tilt Shift Damascus.jpg</a><br /> <a href="http://digitalroundabout.net/temp/ts/Tilt%20Shift%20Damascus%20Buildings.jpg">Tilt Shift Damascus Buildings.jpg</a><br /> When it comes to separating the foreground from the background in post process, I need to pay for classes to do that, because I am admittedly horrible in that regard. <br /> Let me reiterate though, this would not be just for head and shoulders if I were to get it, but I was afraid that it might distort those types of photos if I attempted that style of photo. I would still use it for group portraiture (especially outdoors) and architecture. I am using a 50D right now and will be getting a 5dii in mid december (thats when its budgeted in for me). I allowed myself one more lens to acquire before saying no to my gear acquisition monster, and I decided to get something that would open up a few more doors in my mostly landscape/cityscape/portrait repertoire. Before this I was thinking an 85mm 1.8 to give me a longer portrait with a wider aperture (that range is currently covered by my 70-200 f/4 is) but then I started to consider how a ts-e would be able to aid in most of what I do (the 45mm seemed to me like a decent compromise considering the focal lengths I tend to use). I do own a 50mm 1.4 which is close as a focal length, but its just doesn't seem like it would be the same to use it and modify in post. Call me crazy?</p>

<p>(P.S. sorry for the potentially insanely large rambling of a post)</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The lens will work fine but you will need a tripod / live view for regular use. I find tilt shift lenses difficult to focus without using live view. This is less of an issue for very wide angles and landscape use but for portraits my eyesight has issues with TS lenses. For full body images you may find it difficult to get the blurring you want.<br>

I took a cheaper approach than the Canon lenses (although I plan to soon add the 17 F4 TS). I bought the Mirex adaptor as I have a full set of Mamiya M645 lenses. While this adaptor is expensive at about $450 (time you pay tax and postage) it is remarkably well made and links MF Mamiya 645 lenses to the Canon body. It gives the same focal length (approx) as on the Mamiya so I have a 35 F3.5, 45 f2.8, 55 f2.8, 80 (both f1.9 and F2.8) and can even use lenses up to the 150 F3.5.<br>

If you are interested I can post images of the adaptor and sample images. The image quality of the Mamiya lenses is very high and vignetting is not really noticible as the lenses were built for a much larger image circle. The adaptor gives 10 degrees tilt and 15mm shift. You can also buy one for Hassy or Pentax 645 lenses, This lionk may help if this cheaper option is of interest.</p>

[faysal]

<p>Oddly enough my purchase before this lens would be a Benro B-2 Ballhead with a Benro A-358M8 set of legs (my current tripod is unacceptably bad).<br>

As for focusing, I intend to use grid view + live view with this camera. I dont intend on getting a focusing screen for it because I dont want to use that for every shot. Being that I do not forsee myself in a situation where i need to use live view but can't I think i'll be alright.<br>

As far as the lenses, I'm not familiar with equipment thats larger than 35mm to be honest. At least in regards to pricing, but I assume its cheaper if I go the MF route because those seem to be the ones that are between 200-500 vs the 800+ AF route lol. <br>

I have lots of time to research, so I'd love to see your samples.<br>

And am i correct to believe the 80mm in MF would be closest to the view of 45mm on 35mm? </p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>No this is just attaching a medium format lens onto a Canon DSLR. The Medium format lenses are not T/S but they have a bigger image circle and a longer flange distance so a mechanical adaptor can be put between the lens and the body. MF lenses like the Mamiyas have to be bought used these days so if you do not own any it ios probably not worth the effort. The Mamiya lenses cost about $100 to $300 used depending on the lens and condition. The only real options to shoot tilt shift on MF are expensive - I actually use a Fuji GX680 for this which is a big bellows focusing Camera (it weight about 4 - 5 kg) and has lots more movement than 35mm can ever have. The Mamiya 645 bodies only have shift lenses made but the Mirex adaptor takes a standard (non TS lens) and makes it tilt shift. Thus while 80mm on 645 is about 50mm on 35mm the Mirex system however does not really change the lenses focal length. Thus an 80mm Mamiya 645 lens on the Mirex adaptor has the same angle of view as a Canon 35mm zoom set at 80mm.</p>

<p>here is the Mirex link<br>

http://www.mirex-adapter.de/tilt_shift_adapter.htm</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>If I were you, before making a large investment on this lens, I would do everything I could to borrow or rent one for a weekend and shoot a lot the kind of shots you are thinking of.</p>

<p>Any such "creative effect" of a specialized lens (instead of using it for simply correcting perspective distortions or gaining depth of field for still life or landscapes, etc.) can become boring, repetitive and overused - I include fisheye lenses and Lens Babies in this category too. They can be useful for very occasional use when the situation and subject demands it.</p>

<p>I would definitely try before you buy, and make sure this is something that you will want for the long term and not just to experiment with a few effects for a while. It may be a better idea to spend your money initially on some of the classic lenses that you will use frequently (and I'd include the 85mm f1.8 in this category) before almost duplicating the focal length of your 50mm to gain what may be passing phase regarding it's creative uses.</p>

<p>Of course, I may be totally off base here and maybe the 45mm T/S lens might be perfect for you, but it's something to think about and I'd make sure it will do what you want - and will continue to want - before making that commitment. </p>

[faysal]

<p>@John<br>

I understand its a big investment, but please understand, as I mentioned above, it wouldn't be for just portraits. I don't have all my photos on here, flickr, or even my personal website, but the majority of them are some sort of landscape or cityscape shot. I intend to continue that, however, I have been striving to do more portraiture, and I was wondering how this could affect me.<br>

On crop, I see the 45mm performing much like the 90mm would on a FF. <br>

I will be getting the FF this december, so I could go back and forth between the two.<br>

I do feel that the lens will always be a specialty lens for me, but I think that's its intention. I doubt it will be the lens I always leave on the camera, its a tad heavy and over kill for other tasks, but its something I want to get into. </p>