Most Useful Focal-Length Lens(es) for Tilt Photography?

[JimAscher]

At the start I recognize that what might be most "useful" to one photographer might not be the same as for another.  That's my disclaimer for asking a possibly naive question.

I've acquired a Lensbaby Tilt Transformer for use with my micro four-thirds cameras and the one legacy lens I currently have on hand -- a Nikon 50mm.  I recognize of course that the effective focal length of this 50mm lens is approximately double that when used with m4/3rd. cameras.  It can thus be considered as representing a modest telephoto lens.  I find it therefore unsuitable for my general photographic interests in wider vistas.

I find I can pick up other used Nikon legacy lenses for use with the Tilt Transformer at reasonable prices.  For now, I am seeking to acquire only one.  I therefore feel I must for now decide between lenses of either 35mm, 24mm or 20mm focal lengths.  A quite modestly priced one I have located at 24mm sells for about $100, and I am tempted.  But that would still represent on my cameras an effective focal length of only about 48mm.  For landscape work, will I possibly be disappointed and regret that I didn't go for a wider lens?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[elf]

Check the DOF at hyperfocal distances for each of those focal lengths to see if adding tilts would be beneficial.  I think you'll find the tilt adaptor will be more effective at longer focal lengths.

Note: Use a COC of 1.5*pixel width in the DOF calculations.

[JimAscher]

Check the DOF at hyperfocal distances for each of those focal lengths to see if adding tilts would be beneficial.  I think you'll find the tilt adaptor will be more effective at longer focal lengths....

Elf:  Can I assume that the DOF for a 50mm lens (as indicated on the lens barrel) doesn't alter when the effective focal length becomes, say, 90mm, when mounted on an m4/3 camera rather than the 35mm camera the lens was initially intended for?

[elf]

Effective focal length is just a marketing term to make you believe you have a bigger lens.  It does make it easier to compare the field of view of a lens between different sensor/film sizes, but how useful is that when you're out shooting?  It doesn't change the DOF or the resolution of a lens.

[JimAscher]

...I think you'll find the tilt adaptor will be more effective at longer focal lengths....

Elf:  Now to get back to this comment of yours, if I were shooting always (or primarily) at, say, f.16 with the wider-angle lenses, then the hyperfocal distance would likely prove deep enough without a need to compensate with tilt.  But at larger lens openings, where the hyperfocal depth is shorter, the tilt option might prove an advantage.

[elf]

It's hard to recommend a specific focal length to work with tilts and swings.  Every focal length will have it's strong and weak points.  You need to get the one that fits your vision.  I'd shoot a few hundred shots with the lens you have now so you can understand the limitations of tilt and swing on a small sensored camera. You may find shooting portraits and macros using tilts and swings to be more interesting than landscapes.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Elf:  Now to get back to this comment of yours, if I were shooting always (or primarily) at, say, f.16 with the wider-angle lenses, then the hyperfocal distance would likely prove deep enough without a need to compensate with tilt.  But at larger lens openings, where the hyperfocal depth is shorter, the tilt option might prove an advantage.

Hi Jim,

Yet there is a difference between shooting at f/16, which generates significant diffraction blur, and shooting wider open with tilt. The in-focus parts of the tilted image will have much better microdetail/microcontrast, assuming that helps for your type of images. That same fact could also allow shooting scenes with shorter shutterspeeds or lower ISO, because despite opening up the aperture one is often still able to put the plane of optimal focus in the right spots for better DOF.

Cheers,
Bart

[JimAscher]

Thanks, guys.  A friend on this forum has seen this thread and is in effect "giving" me his old Nikon 28mm lens.  So, I'll have Nikon 50mm and 28mm lenses to experiment with.  Much to look forward to, and learn. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Thanks, guys.  A friend on this forum has seen this thread and is in effect "giving" me his old Nikon 28mm lens.  So, I'll have Nikon 50mm and 28mm lenses to experiment with.  Much to look forward to, and learn. 

Hey, you paid me "big bucks" to take that lens off my hands!!!

[JimAscher]

Hey, you paid me "big bucks" to take that lens off my hands!!!

Yeh, but I've since instructed my bank to stop payment on the check!

[torger]

With wide angle there is short focal length and large DOF. Typically one does not want short DOF in wide angle photography, but instead whole picture sharp. With that goal you will in a high resolution system now and then gain from being able to tilt to optimize the depth of field. High resolution = many megapixels and lenses that can resolve them. In the film era only large format had this kind of resolution, and tilt/swing has always been used there in landscape photography. Nowadays smaller digital systems has so high resolution that tilt is becoming useful in the same way as for large format photographers.

If the system is not so high resolution, tilt is generally only useful for longer focal lengths when depth of field is short, macro photography being the most obvious application. For a 4/3 system I would definitely go for longer focal lengths, I don't think wide angle will be high resolution enough to make tilt that valuable.

[JimAscher]

With wide angle there is short focal length and large DOF. Typically one does not want short DOF in wide angle photography, but instead whole picture sharp. With that goal you will in a high resolution system now and then gain from being able to tilt to optimize the depth of field. High resolution = many megapixels and lenses that can resolve them. In the film era only large format had this kind of resolution, and tilt/swing has always been used there in landscape photography. Nowadays smaller digital systems has so high resolution that tilt is becoming useful in the same way as for large format photographers.

If the system is not so high resolution, tilt is generally only useful for longer focal lengths when depth of field is short, macro photography being the most obvious application. For a 4/3 system I would definitely go for longer focal lengths, I don't think wide angle will be high resolution enough to make tilt that valuable.

Torger:  Your reasoning and recommendation seem quite apt to my needs.  I assume that even though the effective focal length of my 28mm (wide angle) lens becomes about double that on my Micro 4/3 system, the actual depth of field doesn't actually change.  I am currently looking into also acquiring some used legacy longer focal length lenses.  Thanks for your help.  Jim