Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone has experience of using both the Canon old TS lens and the newer version. Is there a great difference between the two? Is the newer lens closer to the flexibility of a large format TS. I am specialising in architectural photography and do not want to rely on PS for perspective correction. Is it worth purchasing the original TS lens? Are the movements limited?
You'll need a thick wallet to start off with Phillip.
I'd hope to be able to answer that question fairly soon... certainly by the end of the year. I currently have the Mk I TS-E 24mm lens but the vastly improved IQ coupled with decent second-hand prices for the old model make it quite tempting to upgrade. The ability to rotate the tilt and shift independently of each other will give greatly improved flexibility. It's probably worth trying to get hold of the BJP's review of the new lenses.
I couldn't advise anyone to buy the older lens (unless it's my copy
) as CA is a big problem, while this can be corrected the nature of the lens makes it harder than it might be. There are quite a few shots using it on my PF and while the images sharpen up quite well in PS the CA can be quite extreme if you shift it too much. You'll also find that as you tilt the lens you also need to tilt the camera back to avoid converging/diverging verticals. I beleive this is a function of the TS lens design.
I don't want to hijack someone else's thread, especially in a subject I know very little about. But....
For simple T&S applications, such as achieving parallel verticals in architectural photography, has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis of using a T&S lens as opposed to using a normal lens and "correcting" the perspective in Photoshop?
The main problem I get with "correcting" verticals in PS is that things start getting "skewed" - round things become very elliptical, that kinda thing.
I've done stacks of architecture shots and have lots of practice correcting verticals, but to be honest, if you're not reasonably close to vertical to begin with, then your corrections can look a bit wierd.
As for cost-benefit... well that's all down to whether you can sell "corrected" images or need the TS to make a sale.
If you can't sell corrected ones, then you actually "need" a TS, so the CB analysis falls in favour of the TS 
I want the 17mm TS
I can't afford it
Well I can, but I can't justify it - all kit purchases have to pay for themselves from now on, so until I start getting architectural comissions, it's 17-40 and improvisation time
I'd argue that another huge problem with post-correction is loss of information. As soon as you start having to interpolate, as you do when you start skewing stuff in PS, you lose image info. It all comes back to getting it right, or at least as right as you can get it, in the camera.
Quote: or at least as right as you can get it, in the camera
indeed... and that's one of the reasons I started taking piccies of yellow lines
to stop convergence you need the centre of the frame pretty much horizontal
at 17mm and head height, you'd get a nice vertical building but a really boring foreground.
So I took a leaf from the landscpae book of "foreground interest" and got on me knees - got vertical buildings and fantastic lead lines from the road markings
method in my madness
Phil I use a MK1 24 Tilt & Shift and have done for a few months now (see my PF for images) it does save me time in PS which also keeps more of the shot without the to crop. Recently I had a quick play with the new Mk11 24mm and the new 17mm and was suitably impressed with both that I will soon be hiring each of them to try them properly over separate weekends which the hiring may be an option to try yourself. Like Ade the 17mm is on my wish list.
you got a hire price Les?
Maybe worth getting one for a weekend and blitzing a new city - hopefully get some good stock to pay for the hire etc.
Quote: Well I can, but I can't justify it - all kit purchases have to pay for themselves from now on, so until I start getting architectural comissions, it's 17-40 and improvisation time
I reckon that in an A3 print a crop from my 16-35 (which is also a Mk1) is roughly as sharp as a full frame shot from the Mk1 TS-E 24mm, but not as well corrected for rectilinear distortions. I'd expect the same to hold true for the 17-40. The original Tilt shift lenses go back to the early days of the EF system and are very old designs, made for film and digital really shows up the failings of the 24. The 45 and 90 fare better apparently.
not bad - and defo worth it if you're in London taking photos.
Actually, if I get a job that needs a 17mm TS and they're just £25 a day, why would you ever buy one?
Two points....
First, how much will you use it.
I think the big problem for most people is how much use their TS lens gets once the novelty has worn off.
Last October I bought a bargain mint 24mm TSE and decided if I was still using it (a lot) this summer then I'd treat myself to an upgrade.
If I do upgrade then I won't lose much money selling it on and it saved the agonising decision over spending all that money and ending up with a lens I might not use very often.
As it happens I'm getting on with it fine and it is my most used lens combination along with the 70-200 f4 IS L.
I bought mine mainly for tilt so I can achieve extreme depth of field - it rocks! Shift is a gadget - nice to have but I know Photoshop does it well too.
Secondly - the Mk1 isn't THAT bad.....
If you are printing to A3 then the quality is probably going to be plenty good enough. Admittedly a light dose of CA correction helps in some images; but this is easy as I'm not after pixel peeping uber-quality; I'm 'only' printing at A3.
Admittedly I tend to use tilt rather than shift; I know vignetting is worse with shift and I've never looked too hard at shifted image quality; but.....
Thanks for the information everyone. I am either going to purchase the MK I TS or rent the later version for certain shoots, as I find PS corrections lose too much image quality. I start with a sharp image and after only slight vertical corrections, it starts to become very soft. I mean, what is the point of having the quality of the 5d MK II and losing it all when correcting convergence.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top