How useful is Tilt and shift

[jason_elsworth1]

How useful are tilt and shift lenses for landscape photography. I can

see potentially great advantages in the abilty to use wider apeture

and hence faster shutter speed whilst still achieving great depth of

field. I am currently in the process of deciding between a Canon and a

Nikon. My decsion had been made to go Nikon however the ability to use

the Canon tilt and shift system has made me think again. I would

really appreciate any opinions and experiences.

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

[bobatkins]

Useful enough that John Shaw carries an EOS body and T/S lenses in

addition to his Nikon outfit, just so he has the T/S capability. That

in itself should tell you a lot.

 

<p>

 

In addition to a faster shutter speed, the ability to shoot at

medium apertures gives you a potential sharpness advantage, since

stopping down increases diffraction. If you can shoot at f8 or f11

instead

of f22 or f32, you might gain 25%-50% in sharpness.

[dan_smith]

The canon T/S lenses are reason enough to go with Canon rather than

Nikon. Both systems are very good but Nikon doesn't have these T/S

lenses available.

While you can shoot a lot of scenic images without using them, having

the option can come in handy. I shoot a lot of large format work and

use the movements often. In 35mm it would be nice at times. If you

don't have it, you don't have it. But if you do have it you will

certainly find the time & place to use it. Canon has been smart in

offering these lenses in 24 to 90 as not all scenic shots are with

very wide angle lenses. Shooting a field of California Poppies and

having the option of tilt to keep the plane sharp with a 90 would be

a great advantage for some shots. Much like using a 300 on the 4x5.

If you can rent one before buying my bet is you will buy the Canon

gear.

[jana_mullerova]

I take the advantage of this question being posted and ask a related

one: How do the particular focal distances affect/limit the usage of

the Canon T/S's, and which one do you find most useful? (It is not

easy to rent equipment here in Europe, so I will buy one T/S.)

[sergey___]

Hello,

It can be, that T&S in small format may be very nice,

even with some advantages against LF. (But I can not be sure)

You can see some comments on my earlier question (Landscape and Wind).

In connection with it:

What is the price for 24/2.8...90/2.8 TSE?

May be it will be more expensive then good, new 4x5 set?

Best Wishes.

Sergey.

[ShunCheung]

I have the "Advanced Close Up" video by John Shaw and he demonstrates

how to use one of those Canon T/S lenses in landscape work. It

certainly seems to be very useful in certain situations for serious

landscape photographers, as in the case of John Shaw. Unfortunately,

the Canon T/S lenses aren't cheap; they are in the $1300 range in New

York, about four times as expensive as the equivalent lenses without

T/S. The question in my mind is that for those who are really that

serious about landscape photography, shouldn't they be using large

format or at least medium format, which a lot of publication demand

(for landscape work)?

[tom_shapiro]

While the responses have been related to "tilt & shift", I have the

Nikon "shift" (28mm f3.5) and obtained it after having already bought

the Nikon. It is an excellent lens, extremely sharp and since I shoot

at about f8-f11 normally, I have never had any problems with depth of

field. I thought about getting another camera (Cannon), however, the

advantages of the F5 and the few times I might want the tilt option

decided me against the extra cost for another camera system. I have

not needed or wanted the tilt option yet.

 

<p>

 

Tom

[bobatkins]

Shift isn't nearly as useful for nature work as tilt. The main use

of shift is to correct perspective (eg make converging verticals

parallel). Very useful for architecure, not often needed in nature.

Tilt shifts the plane of focus, which can be very useful.

 

<p>

 

There's a Canon FD TS lens (35/2.8). It's possible this <em>might</em>

be adaptable to other some other cameras.

[danny_weber]

The Canon FD 35/2.8 T/S can be adapted to Nikon F mount. There's also

an adapter that B&H used to have to mount FD lenses on Nikon bodies.

With either approach there's no meter or aperture coupling, but using

a T/S lens isn't exactly a snapshot procedure in any case.

[bobatkins]

The conversion must be tricky, since Nikon has a 46.5 mm

flange-to-focal-plane distance, while Canon FD is only 42.1 mm.

To get infinity focus you'd have to shave at least 4.4mm off the

lens mount. I guess you can do it for a price. As I remember, a

few years ago, they were selling used (if you could find one!) for

about the same price as a new EF series T/S lens.

 

<p>

 

I'd assume the B&H adaptor, like most, has optics in it and acts

as a low power TC. Most such adaptors are inexpensive and have

corresponding optical quality. I don't know how well they would do

with a tilted lens, but I'm guessing they won't exactly improve

image quality!

[ShunCheung]

Well, I think John Shaw's solution is easier. That is, if you don't

use Canon EOS and want to use T/S, just buy an EOS body to use your

T/S lens with. I hate to put it this way, but if you are willing to

spend $1300 on a 24mm/f3.5 lens (or 45mm/f2.8 ...), you can probably

afford a few hundred more for an additional body. It certainly beats

some questionable adaptor.

 

<p>

 

I woder how big the market for T/S lenses is. So far, no other major

manufacturer nor 3rd party lens provider is producing them yet (as far

as I know, at least).

[paul_wilson2]

As I've noted in the regular Q&A section, the FD TS lens can and has

been converted to be used on Nikon. I've used one.

 

<p>

 

Kirk does it and they do shave a fair amount off the lens. The collar

that allows the lens to rotate is sacrificed. Instead, the lens can

be rotated on the mount continuously as long as the lens release is

pressed. I've seen the lens used for $700 to $800 and Kirk charges

~$175 for the conversion.

 

<p>

 

Another option is the Rollei TS lens for their 6000 series SLR's. If

you have to ask how much...

[paul_martinez]

I bought my Horseman VH with a 75mm/6.8 Grandagon N lens and 6x9 back

for $1400 (in LN- condition). I added a 58mm Schneider SA 58mm XL

with center filter for $800 (ex++), a 135mm Schneider APO for $450

(new in sealed box) and a Rodenstock 210/6.8 Grandagon N for $400

(LN). The entire set comes out to $3050. At 6x9 I have the equivelant

(and same V:H ratio) of 24mm, 32mm, 57mm, and 90mm lenses in 35mm

format.

 

<p>

 

I am sure the Cannon has the advantage when it comes to ease of use,

and likely some others, but the Horseman has some too. One is the

price. My entire outfit costs as much as 2 T/S and a body. I can also

change film backs, allowing me to use different films or formats

(6x7). The range of the tilt and shift is greater for my lenses

(front standard), and I can also tilt, shift, and SWING the back

standard. And, if your have every seen a 6x9 shot on Velvia

(especially blown up) - you know that 35mm just can't compare.

 

<p>

 

Of course, there is always 4x5. But, it is not as easy to see the

advantage of using 4x5 over 6x9 (compared to 6x9 vs 35mm). And, with

6x9 you still have the 1:1.5 V:H ratio that you get with 35mm, which

I prefer. Of course, I could always use a 6x7 back if I want a ratio

similar to 4x5.

 

<p>

 

Just wanted to let others know there are a other very competative

alternatives to 35mm TS lenses, beside LF.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[don_baccus]

Paul's comments about his 6x9 horseman view camera option are very

informative, and lead to another way of thinking about your question.

 

<p>

 

What are your goals for your landscape photography? Though you

mention landscape photography in your question, it's not clear if this

is your primary photographic interest, or if you're a generalist who

likes to shoot occasional landscapes.

 

<p>

 

If your desire is to create images to enlarge to impressive size (and

good landscape photography begs for this treatment), then 35mm is not

really the way to go, whether you do it for your own enjoyment or with

the eventual goal of trying to place prints in galleries, etc.

 

<p>

 

If your goal is publication, there are still those that demand 4x5 or

at least medium-format. Some calendar companies in particular.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, John Shaw and many other shooters specialize in

35mm nature photography for editorial, advertising, and stock

photography. Though buying a T/S lens is an expensive option, film

costs are much lower than shooting 6x9 or 6x7 or especially 4x5, and

it is much easier to make in-camera dupes (loading and hauling 4x5

film hangers being a pain in the ass) - both of these facts are

important to the stock photographer, which is a volume business where

costs must be kept low if you expect to actually make money at it.

 

<p>

 

So ... different solutions for different photographers based on their

particular needs. What are your particular needs?

[steve_thompson]

Jason: I recently got back from John Gerlachs fall color workshop and

saw the 90 mm Canon EOS tilt and shift lens demonstrated. The above

answer is correct in my opinion concerning the tilt being useful and

the shift not so useful in Nature Photography. I am a Nikon user and

was impressed with what could be accomplished with the tilt-shift

lenses. I am not about to convert to EOS equipment because I simply

can't afford to do it in one fell swope. Fear not I was told by a

participant in the workshop Nikon will have tilt-shift lenses in the

year 2000. Allegedly proto types are been tested now.The patent

apparently runs out in 2000 and the market will be opening up for

anyone to produce tilt- shift lenses. This is all rumor and not been

checked out by me, never enough time you know how it goes. It may be

interresting to contact Nikon and see what they say

[jason_elsworth1]

This would be great news I will contact Nikon. I could wait untill

2000. I really do feel that tilt and shifts have a considerable

advantage in landscape work. Also if you add a 1.4 converter to the

Canon 24 you effectively get a 35mm (according to John Shaw's book).

This gives you x2 excellent landscape lenses. As you say tilt is the

most useful I can only see shift being used for pictures of very tall

trees perhaps, taken from their base.Thanks.

 

<p>

 

In repsonse to Don's question I see myself as a generalist with an

emphasis on taking photographs in wilderness situations reached by

backpacking and day hikes. For these reasons a larger format camera

would always be difficult. Calendar publishing is imporatnt in New

Zealand where I live as the editorial market is small however I feel

if I was going to sell regularly to this market then a larger format

would be required as an additional investment.

The appeal of 35mm tilt and shift to me is the ability to take

sharper landscapes in stronger winds in places where a larger format

could not be carried.

Many thanks to everyone who has repsonded keep them coming. This

thread sems to have genrated quite a lot of interest.

[ShunCheung]

You can say I too have been guilty of mentioning some of these

new equipment rumors here in photo.net, but I always caution against

making your purchase decision based on these rumors. In net news over

the last 15 years, some people were certain that Nikon would soon

change its lens mount only to see them keep introducing more and more

news lenses in the F mount. It may be true that Nikon will introduce

a tilt and shift lens in a couple of years, but unless you can verify

that with certainty with Nikon, I wouldn't assume that will indeed be

the case. For one thing they might not have the focal length you want.

And two years may turn out to be five years, or worse yet, Nikon might

not make any T/S lens for a long time to come.

 

<p>

 

Obviously each brand has its advantages and disadvantages. There is

simply no one "correct" brand for everybody. I happen to use Nikon

mainly because I have been using Nikon since 1977, and I am happy with

it. But if having T/S lenses in 35mm is very important to you, Canon

simply is the only choice right now. Of course, there is always the

"John Shaw" solution.

[glen_johnson]

Well, the idea of tilt shift lenses being available directly from Nikon will certainly be good news for the folks who now limp along with an old FD 35mm TS and an adapter.

 

<p>

 

I wonder how they are going to work the image circle problem. It could be an unsubstantiated rumor, I suppose, but one of the reasons give for Canon's ability to design and use a complete Tilt Shift system of lenses is the enormous diameter of the EOS lens mount. Will the new Nikon lenses be TS in name only, or will they also be significantly functional.

[paul_wilson2]

This is a response to Glen's comment.

 

<p>

 

I'm no optical expert, but it seems intuitively obvious that Canon

would be able to have greater movements since the lens mount wouldn't

get in the way. It also seems intuitively obvious(to me anyway) that

shift have more problems with the lens mount being in the way than

tilt.

 

<p>

 

Since Nikon does make PC lenses and TS lenses *do* work on Nikon

bodies, your question has already been answered. To further prove

that the F mount can handle movements, Nikon used to make a

bellows(PB4 I believe) that had tilt, shift and maybe even swing.

[kurt_warner5]

I just spent the summer working in Mt Rainier at Paradise Inn. For

flower shots I found the 24L TS invaluable! As a matter of fact there

was a two week period when the flowers were peaking that I never took

this lens off my camera. (or so it would seem)

 

<p>

 

I bought this lens for three reasons. (1) it's a 24L. (2) Unlike most

of the other EOS lenses, it has a great depth of feild scale. (3)it

has tilt/shift capabilties. Before I go any farther let me say this is

one sharp $#$#@$# lens!

 

<p>

 

The problem that I've encounterd was using it with my A2. I found it

very hard to focus. I ended up getting the 1N in the hopes of curing

this problem. It did, but not all the way. I still find it hard to

see, or find the point of critical sharpness when focusing. And when

you do find it there can be just the slightest amount of play in the

focusing ring in the area it stays sharp. This is can be a little

frustrating to say the least. Does anybody else have this same

problem?

[kurt_warner2]

I almost forgot.

 

<p>

 

I've heard that Pentax is working on a TS for their 645 system.

[glen_johnson]

Paul, it isn't a question of whether or not tilt shift lenses are

feasible for Nikon. Obviously they are. If they weren't, no one

would bother to even make an adapter for the old FD Tilt Shift lens.

 

<p>

 

My question is, how significant will the movements be? The range of

movement that you can get on an EOS mount before light fall off

becomes a problem is limited. The F mount will be even more limiting

in this regard.

 

<p>

 

I still think that the best way to get movements is to forget 35mm,

and just go straight to a 4x5 monorail.

 

<p>

 

When you get right down to the initial question, i.e., "How useful is

Tilt and shift?" sic, the answer is this. Most 35mm nature images

are NOT made with either tilt or shift. The images sell fine, and

people readily buy photo compilations that are made without such

movements. On the other hand, most large format nature images

probably involve tilt, and might involve shift as well, either to

control the plane of sharp focus, or to minimize reflections, or to

handle a particularly tall subject, etc. etc. etc. History has shown

that, if you give the photographer movement capability, he or she

will eventually use them, regardless of the format. If you give a

photographer a box without movement capability, he or she will

eventually figure out how to coax good images out of that.

 

<p>

 

I don't think the existence of the tilt and shift lens series is

critical for a 35mm system. Nikon hasn't historically thought it

critical either. Canon has developed this capability, largely

because they have historically been second dog in the fight, and they

have to prove their worth by "trying harder."

 

<p>

 

So what.

[don_baccus]

This post isn't going to be pertinent to the original question, but I

really want to respond to Glen's comment...

 

<p>

 

There seems to be a growing fad in the stock photography world for

35mm images with the kind of near-far sharpness that you can only get

by a use of this kind of lens. I don't have personal experience, but

along with John Shaw's buying an EOS body just so he can use this

lens, have seen a Green Book listing by a well-known shooter that

states he not only owns, but knows how to use his T/S 24mm to deliver

the images that purchasers are seeking. I've had limited opportunity

to talk to other full-timers that seems to back up the fact that at

least there's a *perception* among professional nature-shooters that

these lenses will earn one much more than they cost, over time.

 

<p>

 

I think most of us here can predict the kind of images in mind, i.e.

stereotyped fields of flowers and the like.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, this is only pertinent for folks who are thinking of selling

their images, but among other things I think these lenses are becoming

popular with nature professionals in part because 35mm landscape

images have become acceptable for much of the publication world.

 

<p>

 

In essence, though, I agree with Glen in that landscape shooting begs

for larger format if you want to do anything with it *except* sell it

for publication! :)

[glen_johnson]

Well, I know that you're right about the move in this direction. Rod Planck also keeps an EOS body for the tilt shift lenses, and this is after he sold all his other Canon gear to move to Nikon because of the cost differential between the big glass in the two systems (pre Silent Wave lens days).

 

<p>

 

You can do some neat things with the Tilt Shift lenses. Tilt shift and Image Stabilization are both really neat features of the EOS system, and they really have no competition in either area right now.

 

<p>

 

If someone is "hell-bent" on using tilt or shift in 35mm, it would be worth picking up the tilt shift series and a body. If I were doing this, I think I would go on and spring for a 1N body, just because of the 100% finder and the lack of pop up flash to get in the way of the controls. The whole system will set you back about $4700 at current prices - not too much more than you would have to spend for a 300 f/2.8L usm all by itself.

[bobatkins]

"<em>Rod Planck also keeps an EOS body for the tilt shift lenses, and

this is after he sold all

his other Canon gear to move to Nikon because of the cost

differential between the big glass in the two systems"</em>

 

<p>

 

Is this a fact? It doesn't seem to make much sense. You'd only save a

few

thousand dollars (pre "Silent Wave"!) and you'd lose so much selling

and buying again

that it wouldn't be worth the trouble. I can understand it if he

really wanted the F5, or thought Nikon glass was much sharper, but

it makes little sense for relatively small cost differential of

big glass,

especially to a pro.

 

<p>

 

As for T/S lenses, don't forget you can also use them (well, the 90mm

anyway) for macro work, even with a 2x. The tilt feature can be

quite useful since DOF is a real problem in macro and every little

helps. If you're selling your work, every little helps. You only

have to sell 2 or 3 images to make back the extra cost of the

T/S lens over it's non T/S counterpart.