Canon lens choices for architecture.

[Alex Waugh]

Hi everyone,
I've recently been posing a whole bunch of questions to using here regarding field camera systems for architecture so thank you for everyone taking the time to reply. I did actually manage to borrow a Cambo Actus for 2 weeks and while I did enjoy the increased shooting envelope I have ultimately decided that for what I'm shooting Canon is more than enough. Perhaps if I ever hit a higher level...

Ive been shooting with a 5DSR, Arca Cube and 16-35 III setup for the past few weeks and correcting for distortion / keystoning in Capture One. While it would be a boon to see the composition properly in camera this setup seems to be doing a good enough job for my needs. That being said I have very little experience with the TSE lenses and am not sure if I'm getting a different look correcting in software as opposed to in camera. Certainly there is much better work out there than mine but I'm not sure how much of that is just experience and skill.

I can afford to pick up another lens at the moment and am tossing up between the 24mm TSE and the 11-24L. I would enjoy (but don't necessarily need) the ability to try 11-15mm and I think the ability to shoot level and vertical ultra wide and then crop might be a great alternative to shifting and then also give me a nice option for interiors. I am ok with losing the resolution at the moment.  Alternatively I could jump into the TSE family with the 24mm but lose the 11-24's flexibility.

If I could get the same pictures out of the 11-24 with a bit more manhandling/cropping I would probably lean that way but if the inbuilt shift gives an inimitable feel/look to images then I better start building my collection. These lenses are very expensive to rent here in Australia otherwise this would be the obvious choice. I still may bite the bullet but just thought id ask first. What is everyones experience?

[Wolfman]

Your idea about using the 11-15 is interesting but I think the 24t/s is the way to go for architecture & interiors and if you need a wider view you can stitch with the 24t/s. The 24t/s is a specialty lens made for your purposes.

[BobShaw]

24TSE or 17TSE if you really need wider

[tcphoto1]

I would definitely look at the 17TS or 24TS if you are focusing on architectural and interiors. It'd be smart to rent first because those lenses are rather expensive but well worth the investment.

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

When you say architecture...it depends where your focus is.  I shoot architecture for a living and rarely if ever go beyond 24mm.  Occasionally a unique interior or bathrooms...and if I have two, 17mm is plenty.  Going to 14mm and wider starts getting way too much perspective distortion for my tastes and I end up cropping back down.  Since you had a 5DSR, you have the pixels to crop with.  You have the option of composing for the tighter perspective with the 11-24 and then zooming out and making the shot.  Then just crop to simulate the "shift" up or down.  I've done this with the lenses before, and that way you don't have to correct with software.  Software correction is decent...but not always perfect, and not always quite the same.  Plus lighting and composition is easier when you can just see what you are doing on site and get it right. 

As far as the lenses...i've yet to shoot with the 11-24.  I've shot heavily with both the 24 and 17 TSE.  I've used the 16-35 I and II and could never live with them.  I have not used the III.  The 24 TSE is great but has awful corners when fully shifted.  It has a LOT of stretch.  Otherwise it's fine.  The 17TSE on the other hand is Canon's finest wide angle.  I love it.  It is huge and bulbous and you need insane filters for it, but for a shift lens, it is mighty impressive.  For a 17mm lens it is mighty impressive.  That is my choice in the Canon system.  You also get the benefit of easy panoramas with it. 

Ide rather shoot with the 17mm versus stitching with the the 24mm to get the same view.  Better quality in my opinion. 

[Alex Waugh]

Thanks everyone.

Tony I seem to be shooting mostly commercial interiors and mid sized buildings. 24 might actually be the widest I need to go at the moment. There are places where I would like to be able to shoot quite a bit wider. Mainly for abstract B&W compositions but probably nothing that would pay the bills. The 17 & 24 are probably the smart choice, I just love the flexibility of a zoom sometimes.

[aboudd]

I also shoot architecture for architectural clients. For correct perspective, without bending pixels, a TS-E lens is necessary. Yes, the 24MM TS-E II isn't perfect, but it is the best choice right now, unless you want to go for the $5,000 Schneider 28MM which has a larger image circle - but narrower perspective. The 17MM TS-E is a fantastic lens, but I think you would find limited use for it. When I photograph interiors my go-to lens is the 24MM TS, I find I use the 17MM only for really tight spaces like bathrooms and narrow galley kitchens. 

Yes, there is the 16-35 F4 zoom, a good choice at a much lower price, but you are still limited compared to a TS-E as you cannot emulate a tilt with Photoshop to increase your depth of field. If you are shooting a static scene, you could stack focus, but that is time consuming and often not successful. You might think that shooting with a 24MM TS-E II at F8, there would be no need for tilt, but I can tell you shooting larger spaces, like a hotel lobby, it is necessary.

I've attached two images of the same apartment, one shot with the 17, the other with the 24. The third shot is a residential lounge. This is where the tilt is really of great benefit. (These look a little softer here, they are tack sharp).

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

Nice images!

[Daniel_Jackson]

I shoot a bunch of architecture and the tilt shift lenses are so nice to work with, you can see everything in camera without guessing how much of the image you are going to lose by correcting for perspective. It is also easy to shift and stitch if you can't quite get the composition you want. I feel like it is a creative lens that gives me all sorts of options. I would start with the 24tse LII and then add the 17tse if you find you need it. Everything on my webpage has been shot with a tilt shift...  www.danieljacksonphoto.com

[Guillermo Luijk]

If I could get the same pictures out of the 11-24 with a bit more manhandling/cropping I would probably lean that way but if the inbuilt shift gives an inimitable feel/look to images then I better start building my collection.

You have been given good advice about the convenience and usefulness of TS lenses, but I think no one has answered this question so far.

It is a physical fact that no shift lens can provide any image you couldn't obtain with a wider lens and applying a perspective correction (actually it is not a perspective correction but a change in the direction of observation as any panorama engine performs; try it on Google Street view by moving your mouse around).

So yes, you could go for the 11-24 and produce the same views as with the 24 TS at some extra effort and loss of pixelcount.

Regards

[kers]

You have been given good advice about the convenience and usefulness of TS lenses, but I think no one has answered this question so far.

It is a physical fact that no shift lens can provide any image you couldn't obtain with a wider lens and applying a perspective correction (actually it is not a perspective correction but a change in the direction of observation as any panorama engine performs; try it on Google Street view by moving your mouse around).

So yes, you could go for the 11-24 and produce the same views as with the 24 TS at some extra effort and loss of pixelcount.

Regards

But what i see that only few know how to do the perspective correction in a proper way...
on the other hand- nobody seems to care  about the quality of the result as long as it looks OK...

[drewaltizer]

 I use the 24 & 17 TSE for interiors rather than my 11-24 in almost all cases because a room shot at 11mm and cropped to mimic the field of view of a 17 looks quite different from the 17.  I am always trying to shoot as long as I can with interiors while getting the angle I need.  When I need to stitch images, I often use a Hartblei tripod collar http://hcam.de/en/canon-tse-collar.htm  to give me what would, on a view camera, be rear movements.  In other words, the lens is mounted to the tripod and my camera/sensor move within the image circle.  This give me the most pleasing result without going to a larger format.

In any case, to answer what I think you are saying has been unanswered, the reason to shoot longer with perspective correction over the 11-24 is that 11mm looks different from 24 even when cropped to a similar field of view

[Guillermo Luijk]

In any case, to answer what I think you are saying has been unanswered, the reason to shoot longer with perspective correction over the 11-24 is that 11mm looks different from 24 even when cropped to a similar field of view

That is wrong. As long as the camera (lens' entrance pupil to be exact) is located at exactly the same position, the perspective with a wider lens + (proper) perspective correction will be undistinguishable from the longer focal length TS. It's all about math and rectilinear projections, no discussion here.

Regards.

[fdisilvestro]

It is a physical fact that no shift lens can provide any image you couldn't obtain with a wider lens and applying a perspective correction (actually it is not a perspective correction but a change in the direction of observation as any panorama engine performs; try it on Google Street view by moving your mouse around).

Regards

Regarding perspective yes (shift), but you cannot achieve the control of the plane of focus as you can by tilting

[Guillermo Luijk]

Regarding perspective yes (shift), but you cannot achieve the control of the plane of focus as you can by tilting

That's why I said shift lens.

[Alex Waugh]

I actually ended up trying out both options and went with the 24mm TSE. I found it quite hard to conceptualise shots with the 11-24 for later editing and preferred to get it correct in camera. I also like that the 24mm takes relatively accessible 82mm filters. The 11-24 was a stunner and would probably have given me a wider shooting envelope but it wasn't for me.

In other news I'm looking for a tripod that can both support the AS cube and fit inside my Mindshift backpack and taken carryon. The RRS TQC-14 seems to fit this bill but I'm a bit wry of using a centre column tripod with the cube. Any experience here? Either that or take a good look at the new p0 Hybrid head from AS which looks stellar.

[BobShaw]

That is wrong. As long as the camera (lens' entrance pupil to be exact) is located at exactly the same position, the perspective with a wider lens + (proper) perspective correction will be undistinguishable from the longer focal length TS. It's all about math and rectilinear projections, no discussion here.

What maths are we talking about here?
Perspective technically is the apparent meeting of receding parallel lines at a point in the distance. However to most people "perspective" is just a "look".
If two people stand side by side looking at something then the "look" should be the same. They will know some things are in front of other things either because the front object covers the back object or because we have two eyes and our brain interprets the two images and so we can see in three dimensions. Looks can however be deceiving.

The camera however does not see in three dimensions. It sees in two dimensions what is there. Cameras also may not be entirely similar. Everyone talks about the distance in front of the lens as the only thing that matters. I doubt that the distance to the front element makes much difference as I suspect the distance to the optical centre of the lens is what matters. This may not even be inside the lens. However in practice these are probably going to be similar. What is not always the same though is the distance behind the optical centre of the lens to the film plane. We call this distance the focal length of the lens.

I have yet to hear a good reason why this distance that the same light travels through would also not affect the "look".
So if we have an APS camera with a 50mm lens, a 35mm camera with an 80mm lens and a medium format camera with a 150mm lens all side by side looking at the same scene, lets say a person, then they will all fill the frame with the same image. However I say (as would many others) that each will have different look.

Long lenses compress distance and short images expand distance, so we use long lenses for portraits to reduce the size of the nose relative to the ears, and short lenses for landscapes to expand the vastness. Short lenses basically distort. That is my observation. This to me is a big part of the medium format "look".

So in this case I would recommend 24mm TSE also over an 11-24 as less distortion and controllable focal plane.

[NancyP]

Let us know what you think of the Arca-Swiss p0 hybrid head (2 axis fine gear in between the inverted head facing tripod and pan platform facing clamp).

[fdisilvestro]

I have yet to hear a good reason why this distance that the same light travels through would also not affect the "look".
So if we have an APS camera with a 50mm lens, a 35mm camera with an 80mm lens and a medium format camera with a 150mm lens all side by side looking at the same scene, lets say a person, then they will all fill the frame with the same image. However I say (as would many others) that each will have different look.

If the entrance pupil of the lens is at the same position, the sensor plane orientation is the same (this affect keystone) and the magnification of the final image is the same, then the look will be the same. If the diameter of the entrance pupil is the same, then they all will have the same DOF too.

The look may be affected by other issues such as optical aberrations.

Long lenses compress distance and short images expand distance, so we use long lenses for portraits to reduce the size of the nose relative to the ears, and short lenses for landscapes to expand the vastness. Short lenses basically distort. That is my observation. This to me is a big part of the medium format "look".

If you use a short lens and crop you will get the same resulting perspective as using a long lens. You will lose quality of course.

[BobShaw]

If the entrance pupil of the lens is at the same position, the sensor plane orientation is the same (this affect keystone) and the magnification of the final image is the same, then the look will be the same. If the diameter of the entrance pupil is the same, then they all will have the same DOF too.

The look may be affected by other issues such as optical aberrations.

If you use a short lens and crop you will get the same resulting perspective as using a long lens. You will lose quality of course.

Unfortunately i disagree with pretty much everything here.
Firstly the magnification is not the same. To make an A4 print (297 x210mm) from an APS camera (22x15.5mm) you magnify the image 182 times. For a 35mm camera (36x24mm) it's 72 times and for medium format (say 36x44mm or more) it's no more than 36 times. That's also digital magnification which is bad.

DOF is definitely not the same if focal length varies. There is a mathematical formula but focal length is one of the key ingredients. Download any DOF app to see the relationship. The size of the entrance pupil may affect the maximum aperture available, but the aperture set affects DOF, not the maximum aperture available.

A person shot with a short lens looks like a helicopter traffic reporter. Big nose and tiny ears. That definitely affects the look.