Topic: Canon 17mm TS lens - first images (Read 11551 times)

budjames · « **on:** May 15, 2011, 08:25:14 pm »

I longed for the benefits of a tilt-shift lens to use on my Canon 1Ds MkIII and 5D MkII bodies, but until last week I resisted due to the high cost. However, after reading the review of the Canon 17mm TS f4 lens on DigLloyd's blog and then watching tutorials on OnOne Software's web site featuring UrbEx and HDR photography, I took the plunge. $2,400 later, I'm the proud owner of a new Calon 17mm TS lens.

I received the lens Friday afternoon from B&H Photo. Saturday was overcast with intermittent drizzles. A perfect opportunity for some cool HDR architecture photography. Historic Doylestown, PA is a 15 minute drive from my home. I headed out and got some cool shots. Check them out on my web site at: http://www.budjamesphotography.com/Bud_James_Photography/Portfolios/Pages/Doylestown.html#0.

The images were collected in Lightroom 3.3. HDR processing was done in NIK Software's HDR Efex Pro.

Please post your comments either here or on my web site.

Cheers.
Bud
http://budjamesphotography.com

qwz · « **Reply #1 on:** May 16, 2011, 01:48:48 am »

Wonderful images - a special composition and perspective 'tricks' gained by UWA shift lens.
But, in my opinion, processing is terrible like a school-yards point-ad-shooting;-(
You shoot in cloudy overcast day and i can't believe that canon full-frame sensor cannot handle contrast (needed to recover via HDR tools).
Sorry

budjames · « **Reply #2 on:** May 16, 2011, 06:24:16 am »

QWZ,

So, I guess you don't like my HDR renditions. Oh well. A board member of the museum loved them. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers.
Bud

Josef Isayo · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2011, 03:16:46 pm »

I would go back and reprocess the images. HDR should be banned by optometrists for damaging eyes.

louoates · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2011, 03:33:49 pm »

I would have thought a 17mm (tilt or no tilt) would really distort the images. I can see how the ts could be a great addition to my toy list. As to the hdr, I happen to like your treatments. It is an obvious hdr to me but not so far pushed to be blatantly strange. About the only thing I would have changed is dialing back the exposure on the ceilings because it calls too much attention to its rough textures at the expense of the other parts of the image.

pfigen · « **Reply #5 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:02:47 am »

How much visible distortion you get with the lens is largely dependent on how you use it. Here are three, the first of which was my first image with this lens, taken about a year and a half ago. The second is an exterior of Anderson School of Business UCLA, as part of a brochure I was doing for them and the third is the library at Anderson, shot with the 17 as a horizontal then shifted up and down and stitched - a shot that would have been very difficult before this lens existed. This lens alone is a game changer. I don't use it all the time but I'm sure glad I have it when I need it.

Rob C · « **Reply #6 on:** May 18, 2011, 03:34:31 am »

The colour effect is the effect, and one likes or dislikes it; what disturbs me is the apparent shift in geometry of the constructions. I get the distinct impression that somewhere along the line, the lens was tilting upwards or downwards and, infact, a bit of both across exposures.

It doesn't look real.

Rob C

Rhossydd · « **Reply #7 on:** May 18, 2011, 04:01:34 am »

Quote from: budjames on May 15, 2011, 08:25:14 pm

Saturday was overcast with intermittent drizzles. A perfect opportunity for some cool HDR architecture photography.

Not sure why you'd think that. High dynamic range photography is a useful tool for taming dynamic ranges beyond the sensor's capabilities, dull overcast days don't give that sort of problem, often the reverse.

The photos look like they were fairly reasonable before PP, although as Rob says there's something not quite right about the perspective of some of them.

However the post processing looks horrible and has removed any suggestion that they were take with high quality equipment. Frankly at the size you've presented them, most could have been taken with a phone.

It's curious as on your web site most of the images presented are straight, decent photographs, you really shouldn't need to resort to such gaudy PP tricks as this.

Paul

haefnerphoto · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2011, 08:30:02 am »

Quote from: pfigen on May 18, 2011, 02:02:47 am

How much visible distortion you get with the lens is largely dependent on how you use it. Here are three, the first of which was my first image with this lens, taken about a year and a half ago. The second is an exterior of Anderson School of Business UCLA, as part of a brochure I was doing for them and the third is the library at Anderson, shot with the 17 as a horizontal then shifted up and down and stitched - a shot that would have been very difficult before this lens existed. This lens alone is a game changer. I don't use it all the time but I'm sure glad I have it when I need it.

Very nicely done! I've used the lens in a similar manner, it really is a game changer!! Jim

pfigen · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2011, 10:53:17 am »

What happened to the other two images I posted? Hmmm. Well, here's the first.

pfigen · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2011, 10:54:02 am »

and the second from Anderson

LKaven · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2011, 11:31:35 am »

Hi Bud -- there's nothing wrong with using HDR for these applications. The slight issue with your images is that they are left with halos from filter artifacts in tonemapping. In an almost-anything-goes area of photography, this is the one thing that would be deleterious to the effect you're trying to achieve. Using the right amount of light smoothing, for example, in Photomatix, would alleviate those issues. A little more refinement in your HDR technique would go a long way here. In other respects, your client has every reason to be pleased with the images.

Rob C · « **Reply #12 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:52:35 pm »

Quote from: pfigen on May 18, 2011, 10:53:17 am

What happened to the other two images I posted? Hmmm. Well, here's the first.

That's a beauty!

B/W still has a lot going for it, too.

Rob C

pfigen · « **Reply #13 on:** May 18, 2011, 03:52:46 pm »

I should add that the image I posted of the library at Anderson, although nominally a three image stitch, is actually around twenty-four or so image total being blended - first for exposure and then for stitch. There were probably eight images per that I blended manually, never liking any of the automatic routines that various software solutions have. Personally I like a more natural look, but that's just me. The basic blend and stitch took about half an hour, then a couple more hours fine tuning. This is actually not even the final, but it's what I had on my laptop.

As far as the original poster's HDR is concerned, I think that for some applications it's probably fine - where you want to create a particular mood or tell a certain story, like in a CD or book cover or magazine editorial, but for general architecture, it's something that might not wear over time, but if the client likes it, go for it.

mediumcool · « **Reply #14 on:** May 19, 2011, 05:00:44 am »

Quote from: budjames on May 16, 2011, 06:24:16 am

QWZ,
So, I guess you don't like my HDR renditions. Oh well. A board member of the museum loved them. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Cheers.
Bud

Well seen, but for me the shots look like 3D models rendered with WagnerMan (bad joke, referring to Wagner’s bombastic music style). Subtlety preferred by this viewer. Beethoven or Mozart even?

K.C. · « **Reply #15 on:** May 20, 2011, 11:35:15 pm »

Wow this is a tuff crowd.

I'm not a fan of HDR either but I do have a 17 and love it. Both of them can be used to create drama and take some time to master.

Maybe a good direction would be to enjoy your new lens and see what you can create just shooting without HDR and then post here for some feedback.

I've been shooting professionally for over 30 years and I find myself learning every time I shoot with the 17, FWIW.

Cineski · « **Reply #16 on:** May 23, 2011, 10:25:41 am »

Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.

Rob C · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2011, 04:20:55 pm »

Quote from: Cineski on May 23, 2011, 10:25:41 am

Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.

You have a point, but then a lot depends on intended usage. For many outlets a pretty dramatic perspective, with good verticals, can really add something to a subject. I can see a lot of travel publiction useage for things like that, stock etc. as well as some estate agents fighting to show a facade in these crowded tourist zones, but I wonder if architects themselves are all that keen. I have no idea about that, I just wonder what they think about it. I would certainly like such a lens. Being Nikon, I can safely say that and know I'm not going to have to do anything about it!

Rob C

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #18 on:** May 23, 2011, 05:47:44 pm »

Quote from: Cineski on May 23, 2011, 10:25:41 am

Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.

But that is silly. You can just as easily put an ultra-wide lenses on a large format view camera or medium format and get exaggerated perspective and field of view.

I agree that over use of extreme wide angle lenses is a problem and IME is the particular issue with newbies, BUT there is nothing unique about DSLRs in this regard.

kers · « **Reply #19 on:** May 23, 2011, 06:36:53 pm »

Quote from: Cineski on May 23, 2011, 10:25:41 am

Personally, I think architecture should be left to medium to large format. 35mm with a 17mm lens leaves so much to be desired when field of view is put into play. I see so many photographers shooting with ultra wide tilt shifts and they end up with completely unnatural looking images. Slap a 45mm t/s on a 35 and back up so your perspective looks more natural. And as for HDR, I can take it or leave it but mostly leave it.

I think this has nothing to do with the format, besides you have more extreme lenses to choose from.
I am shooting architecture as well with a 35mm and sometimes use a lens with an angle of over 100 degrees that still looks natural.
It all depend on the subject and the way you use the lens. I agree that there are limits to what you can do, but frontal views can look natural- even when shot with a 100 degrees lens.
natural landscapes have usually no problem at all.
-
about HDR- I use it all the time- but with my own special photoshop treatment. I always fight against halos and unnatural looking images. In this case I think it is typically over the edge.

Author Topic: Canon 17mm TS lens - first images (Read 11551 times)