Pixel peep of TS-E 24 II and Canon 5Ds R?

[Rajan Parrikar]

This is one file. I haven't had time to go through the various frames of the scene I have so this might not represent the best of the lot. The crops are 100%. The Detail setting in ACR was set to 80, Sharpening Amount to 30 with Radius 1. No other corrections were imparted to the file (except a slight leveling of the horizon).

5DS + TS-E 24L II, @ f/8. Some Tilt on the lens (how much, I don't remember).

[Rajan Parrikar]

Centre crop.

[torger]

Torger
I have the SK28XL since 2 weeks now and it's killer! It's a completely other league than the SK35XL (that I also like).
I use it with Kodak P25+ and Dalsa P40+ up to 20 mm shift with good results. (CF is necessary)
Regards,
Ben

I'm looking into getting the SK28XL too at some point (I have test shots and I see that it has a larger high quality image circle than the SK35XL despite being even wider angle). I'm not shooting architecture much though (I do mostly landscape) so the 75mm high quality image circle of the SK35XL serves me fine for the moment. The problem with the SK28XL is that due to it's symmetric design it's not compatible with that many sensors, but it is indeed compatible with my H4D-50 back (the Kodak KAF-51000) so it would be nice to get that lens at some point. Some still use it with the 6um Dalsa sensors (P65+, IQ160 etc) but then maximum shift is only a few millimeters until color cast becomes unrepairable, but for those full-frame 645 sensors you can still get more shift with the SK28XL than the Rodenstock Digaron-S 28mm which has its image circle hard-limited to 70mm...

Medium format tech cams have several excellent wide angles, but if you are used with the huge shift ranges available from TS-E 24 and TS-E 17 with say a 5Ds you may be disappointed. To get most use of the medium format alternative you need to keep to a bit lower amounts of shift (corresponding to 7-8mm on the TS-Es with a 5Ds). Within that range you will get higher resolution from the MFD tech cameras, assuming you have more megapixels on the sensor that is.

[Ghibby]

I have the TSE 24mm F3.5 MK2 and have been using it on the 5Ds for a few months now.  It’s very good but as has been said before it does not have the same punch as lenses like the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art.  It is at is best between f5.6 and f8.0 in terms micro contrast when used with modest amounts of shift.  For heavy shift use you need f8.0 to f11 to ensure good corners. 

Focusing with live view is not as easy as it is on the old 5d Mk2 but this I am sure is mainly to do with the line skipping the 5d2 did for live view, made the contrast really pop when you hit focus in live view so really easy to set up manual focus lenses like the TSE.    I have found that using tilt requires a very high level of precision with the 5Ds, any error in your technique is ruthlessly shown by the 50mp camera.  The precision required is at the very limit of how controllable the tilt mechanism is in practice, movements have to be very considered.  While I have not shot many frames at full shift with it I have been impressed with those I have. The crop below is from the top of a frame with 11mm of shift, shot at F9.0. No tilt was used.   100% Crop of top left part of the image shown together with low res version of the whole frame.

Processing in LR CC sharpening 91, 0.6px, detail 26, masking 30, luminance NR 18, Colour 25

Hope this is useful to you all.

Ben

[one iota]

As tested from the-digital-pcture.com:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=979

[gwhitf]

Curiously, a lot of responses here seem to say "maybe I just don't have a good copy". I would add me to that list. What does that tell you? Buy from company with 30 day return policy or avoid the lens altogether. Test immediately, while you can still send it back. I have the I; maybe the II version is radically improved. Imagine a zeiss or sigma art T/S lens, would be nice.

[marc aurel]

Curiously, a lot of responses here seem to say "maybe I just don't have a good copy". I would add me to that list. What does that tell you? Buy from company with 30 day return policy or avoid the lens altogether. Test immediately, while you can still send it back. I have the I; maybe the II version is radically improved. Imagine a zeiss or sigma art T/S lens, would be nice.

The TS-E 24 Mark I is so much worse than the mark II. That is not a question of a good or a bad copy.

[Rob C]

I have the TSE 24mm F3.5 MK2 and have been using it on the 5Ds for a few months now.  It’s very good but as has been said before it does not have the same punch as lenses like the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art.  It is at is best between f5.6 and f8.0 in terms micro contrast when used with modest amounts of shift.  For heavy shift use you need f8.0 to f11 to ensure good corners. 

Focusing with live view is not as easy as it is on the old 5d Mk2 but this I am sure is mainly to do with the line skipping the 5d2 did for live view, made the contrast really pop when you hit focus in live view so really easy to set up manual focus lenses like the TSE.    I have found that using tilt requires a very high level of precision with the 5Ds, any error in your technique is ruthlessly shown by the 50mp camera.  The precision required is at the very limit of how controllable the tilt mechanism is in practice, movements have to be very considered.  While I have not shot many frames at full shift with it I have been impressed with those I have. The crop below is from the top of a frame with 11mm of shift, shot at F9.0. No tilt was used.   100% Crop of top left part of the image shown together with low res version of the whole frame.

Processing in LR CC sharpening 91, 0.6px, detail 26, masking 30, luminance NR 18, Colour 25

Hope this is useful to you all.

Ben

Is it my eyes, or is there something pretty odd going on in the first shot? I get the distinct impression of parts swelling outwards compared to areas beside them. Somewhat like looking through a piece of bad glass.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Is it my eyes, or is there something pretty odd going on in the first shot? I get the distinct impression of parts swelling outwards compared to areas beside them. Somewhat like looking through a piece of bad glass.

Rob C

A known perception problem with t/s lenses. Our eyes/brain do not expect such tall objects to be straight when viewed from the ground, they expect some perspective distortion. Hence the mistake most t/s users make by creating geometrically absolute verticals, when a slight distortion would be sufficient. Ancient Greeks knew that better than modern photographers, so they built their columns accordingly.

[BobDavid]

A known perception problem with t/s lenses. Our eyes/brain do not expect such tall objects to be straight when viewed from the ground, they expect some perspective distortion. Hence the mistake most t/s users make by creating geometrically absolute verticals, when a slight distortion would be sufficient. Ancient Greeks knew that better than modern photographers, so they built their columns accordingly.

It would be interesting to conduct a double blind test to quantify what is preferable: a picture of a tall building that is 100% "corrected" versus one that has a slight amount of convergence towards the top. Slobodan, do you take this into consideration with your work? You have an excellent eye for architecture.

[Rob C]

A known perception problem with t/s lenses. Our eyes/brain do not expect such tall objects to be straight when viewed from the ground, they expect some perspective distortion. Hence the mistake most t/s users make by creating geometrically absolute verticals, when a slight distortion would be sufficient. Ancient Greeks knew that better than modern photographers, so they built their columns accordingly.

Yes, that's so, but in this case I think it's something apart from that problem of expectations.

I felt the same with some shots using my old 35mm shifter Nikkor in France. I'll try to find an image that shows what you refer to above. Got it:



The effect is most noticeable near the centre - a kind of bulging, rather than a problem with the concept of verticals not converging. Maybe it's really all the same thing - just feels different depending on the specific shot. I've seen many architectural shots in my day, and the vast majority, done properly, do not betray themselves in this way. Perhaps it's to do with lenses that tilt/shit instead of having the camera perform the tilts/shifts.

My Australian correspondent, Walter, uses a 24mm TS-type Canon, and as far as I remember, he doesn't think much of the tilting ability on such a tiny format; he comes from 8x10... The problem is seeing well enough what you are trying to do. However, shift works well.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The effect is most noticeable near the centre - a kind of bulging, rather than a problem with the concept of verticals not converging....

I used converging verticals as an example, but there are all sorts of other optical distortions involved. In Greek architecture, it is known as "entasis," if I am not mistaken.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Slobodan, do you take this into consideration with your work? You have an excellent eye for architecture.

The simplest trick is to hide your standpoint (ground), if you are actually standing at the street level. That way you can correct verticals to be perfectly vertical, as eyes/brain do not have a reference point and assume you are viewing it from an elevated standpoint, e.g. through a window on a neighboring building. If I can not do that, I do not mind leaving converging verticals as such.

[alatreille]

Hi Torger,

I have a couple of photographs similar to the below that are shot with the TSE 24mm and 5dsr and stitched horizontally and then diagonally up (the subject is in the centre frame).  I do this when I know that I want to produce an imageof 16:9 or 2:1 proportions and don't wish to crop.
These total approx 6000x12000px and should give you a pretty good idea of the range of the lens (well my copy anyway) 

24mmTSE @ F8-Stitched.


Happy to send through a tiff for your view, or if you'd like I could send you some of the individual raws.

Also a couple of recent examples shot just last week with the 5dsr and respective lenses.  Lots of find detail on these facades.
These are pretty much straight out of the camera, so there's a little retouching  on each that will occur if the client selects the images.


This shot with the 24 @ F11



This shot with the 17 @ F11

Please pm me if your still looking for examples.

Lots of bricks in all of these so pixel peepers should like this.

;-)

AL

[uaiomex]

I always leave a residual keystoning to my architecture shots. At times I do too with interior photography and I do it both ways. When shifting the lens down and when in shifting up. To me the pictures look better that way. Not only more natural but better.
So far I haven't had an architect or media creative to object this (touch wood). Sometimes with certain subjects and/or angles, I use the Wrap Tool to decrease the higher floors. That to me they look much better when needed because to my eyes, it looks kind of moronic to look at a 10-story building with the 10th floor windows looking as tall as the ones at ground level. The effect can be even more pronounced after the brain does its math.
If my 6D files can withstand this "extreme" treatment, any modern digital camera file can.
Eduardo

It would be interesting to conduct a double blind test to quantify what is preferable: a picture of a tall building that is 100% "corrected" versus one that has a slight amount of convergence towards the top. Slobodan, do you take this into consideration with your work? You have an excellent eye for architecture.