Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Kaypee on April 14, 2014, 02:33:56 am
-
I'm shooting more interiors than exteriors recently and the 24mm tilt shift is a bit too wide.
The 45 has comparatively bad reputation and the 90 is probably too long. Can I ask if anyone has a solution for something in the 35-65mm range which I prefer for interiors? I'm using 5d MK 2(I apologise for not posting in the correct section but it does seem the most relevant place to post). I have heard mixed results about the 1.4 converter and fairly negative reviews about the 2.0 but any real life feedback on these or other solutions would be really helpful.
Thanks a lot
Kaypee
-
The 24mkII and 1.4 converter (latest version) gives you 33mm and is better quality than the 45 if used at its 5.6-8 sweet spot, a small bit of barrelling but it's easy to fix. Or you could use an A7r and crop with the 24 which would give you something similar in focal length( not tried it and measured the equivalent focal length if cropped to match pixels) I think there is a mamiya or pentax 50mm that works with a zoerk shift attachment but I haven't any experience of those.
I too am waiting for canon to bring out a new 45ts-e, I sold mine as it was not very sharp even though I tested a few when buying.
-
Thanks for that. Have you tried the 2x converter on the 24mm?
-
No just the 1.4 (latest version)
-
You can look at the digital picture lens tests to get an idea of how good/bad the combination is.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=4&LensComp=348&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
I'd say that despite that the TS-E 45 has a huge amount of chromatic aberrations the image quality is better than TS-E 24II + 2x III. I haven't used the TS-E 45 myself, but I would guess that much of the chromatic aberrations can be cleaned up in post-processing, ie the lens works better in practice than seen on test charts.
-
having used 3 copies of the 45 ts-e it’s just not that sharp especially when shifted, it’s miles away from the quality of the 24 and 90 which are very good, i tried to avoid having to use the 45 and eventually sold it to a wedding photographer, i would imaging the shortcomings were not so apparent for people photography but for buildings, interiors and still life it just wasn’t good enough (for me)
-
I recommend the Contax Zeiss PC-Distagon 35mm.
Below you can see a test against the Hartblei 40mm.
More about it in my reply in this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=86608.0
Marc
-
I use the 24TS with the 1.4 extender (the mIII). You lose a little sharpness, and it introduces a slight barrel distortion (about 4 "points" of correction in Lightroom).
To go longer, I'm using the Schneider 50TS, which is a little awkward to use but gives great results. Also kind of expensive. Below are Schneider samples, all include shift; the sconce light (crazy colorful shot) is also tilted.
-
Thanks for all the info. I'm leaning towards the extender as it will be useable with other lenses and more budget friendly than the Schneider.
If Canon do ever update the 45 it would be useful to have a 33 and 45, rather than 45 and 50.
Nice images Scott.
-
Crop it on the computer.
-
You could get the mirex tilt and shift adapter and some medium format wide angle lens. There are some sharp lenses but I dont know how they compare to the options you mentioned.
-
I need as many pixels as possible. Also the compression changes with longer focal lengths. Does anyone know if this is the case with converters or do they just magnify?
-
I need as many pixels as possible. Also the compression changes with longer focal lengths. Does anyone know if this is the case with converters or do they just magnify?
Assuming perfect rectilinear perspective, there's no difference in compression between a longer focal length or cropping a shorter focal length to the same angle of view. You can experiment yourself and see that it's the case. A wide-angle rectilinear lens "stretches the corners", ie towards the center the perspective is compressed. Converters just magnify the center of the lens (ie crop), but as said it won't make a difference in perspective. If you need perfectly straight lines the distortion of a retrofocus wide and a converter in series can be a bit complex, but for most uses a TS-E II + 1.4x has low enough distortion.
-
I use the Mirex and Mamiya lenses from time to time with good results. This allows me to use my 35mm, 45mm, 50mm, 80mm and 120mm with perspective control. I would like to see Canon produce a 35mmT/S lens. Jim
-
I haven't used the TS-E 45 myself, but I would guess that much of the chromatic aberrations can be cleaned up in post-processing, ie the lens works better in practice than seen on test charts.
Hi,
That's correct, for my copy of the TS-E 45mm anyway.
I also think that some of the comments about the relative performance of the 45mm versus its 24mm II and 90mm siblings is a bit overstated. Sure, the 24mm II and 90mm TS-E lenses are very sharp, but the 45mm isn't all that bad IMHO.
Attached are 100% zoom crops from the TS-E 45mm f/2.8 on my EOS-1Ds Mark III, center, edge with full 11 mm horizontal shift, and the corner of that same 11 mm horizontal shift (so roughly at 45 degrees on the edge of the image circle). I used Capture One Pro 7.2.1 for the Raw conversion, with CA removal, no sharpening.
The first version remained totally unsharpened, and the second version had the same Capture sharpening applied to all three crops in Photoshop. Output sharpening will make the images really pop.
In my opinion the results are quite good, with only marginally compromised extreme corner resolution. Maybe I have a good copy?
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's interesting. I will rent one for a day or toe and give it a try.
I'm finding tilt shift a fairly steep learning curve. My 24mm seems to barrel a little bit when shooting buildings with horizontal lines that run completely across the frame. I can fix it easy enough in post and it's only minimal but I would have hoped to avoid it. It might be 'user error' although I'm not tilting and lining the camera up before shifting. Is there anything else to take into consideration when lining up a shot?
-
That's interesting. I will rent one for a day or toe and give it a try.
I'm finding tilt shift a fairly steep learning curve. My 24mm seems to barrel a little bit when shooting buildings with horizontal lines that run completely across the frame. I can fix it easy enough in post and it's only minimal but I would have hoped to avoid it. It might be 'user error' although I'm not tilting and lining the camera up before shifting. Is there anything else to take into consideration when lining up a shot?
Hi,
Especially wide angle lenses are quite difficult to line-up perfectly, TS lenses are no different in that respect. When not exactly square in front of a façade, the horizontal lines will also converge, just like the verticals would. When you then try leveling, it will be almost impossible to do by eye. It becomes a lot easier if it's just avoided, and shot at an angle. Otherwise one can start by first leveling the camera with a good (digital) level, then shift. Building interiors usually just need good alignment of verticals.
A 45mm lens is a lot less critical because of its more limited angle of view. It is also a nice focal length to use for stitching, with the image magnification for resolution, the stitching for angle of view, and still a reasonable DOF (in addition to the Tilt capability). One can use different stitching methods, either by exploiting the larger image circle of a TS lens, or by doing a more traditional stitch from images that were rotated through the No-Parallax-Point (NPP). Panorama stitching software is also very useful for perfecting the alignment and removing distortion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Much appreciated Bart. Is that a digital camera level as I have never seen one? I have seen bubble hotshot levels but they generally get bad reviews. Thanks again.
-
Much appreciated Bart. Is that a digital camera level as I have never seen one? I have seen bubble hotshot levels but they generally get bad reviews. Thanks again.
Hi,
Maybe these discussions will help:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=43315.msg362958#msg362958 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=43315.msg362958#msg362958)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44528.msg383221#msg383221 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44528.msg383221#msg383221)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart. I think a level other than my tripod one is the way to go. I do think Im getting level or very close but there seems to be some distortion. Both of these images had a lot of shift but no tilt and there seems to be some barrelling. This is with the 24mm without the converter. I know its onlyslight but would this be expected with the lens. I guess i can correct in PS or LR.
-
Thanks Bart. I think a level other than my tripod one is the way to go. I do think Im getting level or very close but there seems to be some distortion. Both of these images had a lot of shift but no tilt and there seems to be some barrelling. This is with the 24mm without the converter. I know its onlyslight but would this be expected with the lens. I guess i can correct in PS or LR.
Hi,
The tripod levels are not all that accurate, but it will remain difficult to nail the leveling in-camera as well. For very accurate work I tend to square the image in a Pano stitcher such as PTGUI or Hugin.
Judging from the images, there is no geometric lens distortion to speak of. Maybe some can be detected at full size, but still negligible. There is a minor amount of Yaw, Pitch, and Roll, as detected by PTGUI, and corrected in the attached image which is now virtually perfect.
For example, the projection distortion for P1 was caused by:
Yaw: -0.0115 degrees
Pitch: 1.9962 degrees
Roll: -0.3315 degrees
and for P2:
Yaw: -1.4425 degrees
Pitch: -0.9158 degrees
Roll: -0.0967 degrees
As you can see, also very small corrections, hardly possible to detect when composing the shot in camera, but still noticeable on wide angle shots.
In addition, one may want to not correct the Pitch angle for 100%, because it might look a bit more natural to leave some keystoning in the image. Changing the Pitch angle a very small amount in the Stitcher settings is all that's needed to achieve that more natural look. Lightroom and Photoshop ACR make somewhat similar (faster but a bit lower quality) choices for correction with the Upright feature, and also allows subsequent manual tweaking of the vertical correction to deliberately under-correct keystoning.
Another consideration is that buildings are not always perfectly square and, like these examples, may feature façade elements that are less or more recessed which can cause an optical illusion of distortion where none is in actuality.
Cheers,
Bart