Hi all-

I have some questions regarding 4x5 format and tilt shift lenses for my Canon.

I work in advertising and my style consists of people in landscape, portraits and action. Everything though, is wrapped around the landscape. Up until now I have been shooting a Canon 1ds M2. I want the big monumental landscape that can't be achieved with a wide angle 35mm lens because of distortion it causes at the wider angles. Don't kill me but up until now I've been shooting multiple frames at 35mm and then stitching them together to create a big view without the distortion.

I want to be able to come up close to my subjects and still achieve a wide "big" view of the landscape without any distortion. From what I understand my options are to shoot 4x5 or get a tilt shift lens. Would a tilt shift lens give me the wide "monumental" view I'm talking about? I am open to any and all suggestions.

Thanks!

Ed McCulloch
801.836.2192

http://www.mccullochphotography.com

Either option should get you what you want. I shoot architecture with the options you mention, Canon 24 T/S DSLR, 4x5 (75,65mm lenses) and 6x9(47,58mm lenses) with view cameras. Though you can correct a fair amount of perspective, there is still even with Canon T/S lenses a fair amount of barrel distortion and Chromatic aberration. The advantage with view camera lenses and bag bellows is that you can correct for much more perspective and even with extremely wide lenses there is little or no barrel distortion and CA.

Ed, Any 35mm-coverage(and therefore "retrofocus-design") wideangle, even the best of the best, will produce noticably more barrell(or other?) distortion than an equivalent-angle , high quality 4x5-intended lens with it's symmetrical-design optics. In general the shift or tilt-shift lenses for 35mm use have LESS distortion than, say, the f/1.4 super-speed lens of the same focal length, however.
Currently the widest T/S lenses for 35mm size cameras are 24mm.

I think you'll be disappointed with the Canon 24 T/S. I have all three Canon T/S lenses, and while they do have their respective uses, the 24 is the worst optically of the three, and I don't think will deliver the "monumental" quality you are looking for, whatever that is. The 24 I have is decent optically and appears to have a very low amount of barrel distortion - not as good as a Super Angulon 90, but not bad at all. CA is definitely a problem with the Canon 24, but is easily corrected.

The Canon 45 T/S is better, but still not nearly as good as the 90 T/S. The Olympus 35 Shift is quite good if you can find one.

If I were you, I would rent or borrow the lenses you are thinking about and do a comparison of real world images that you will be making with full sized prints side by side. I think if very large very detailed prints are needed, then either the large format or stitched options are going to be most satisfying.

I appreciate the feedback so far.

Thanks pfigen I'm going to rent and check it out for myself. Always the best option right?

Thanks again-

Ed McCulloch
801.836.2192

http://www.mccullochphotography.com

I am correcting some 24TS architectural images as I write this from a magazine shoot yesterday. The amount of correction varies with the amount of shift and generally it is slight. It takes a minute ot two in PS at most. I very rarely use tilt. Yes you can see the full shift effect in the viewfinder as you do it, but the full tilt effect won't be seen as accurate unless you stop the lens down to the taking aperture, as it's effect is modified by the aperture size (DOF).

I use my 24 T/S for architectural shots too. It works quite well, and I use it just as you describe, primarily leveling the camera and shifting to frame the shot. I usually shoot at f/11 or 16 and the lens is actually fairly sharp - well sharp enough for how large the shots are going to be used. The 24 and 45 definitely do not resolve to the limits of the 7.2 micron pixel on a 1DsMKII. They both felt sharper on the 1DsMKI, and both actually were sharper on that camera when shifted fullly. These lenses don't appear to like the anti-aliasing filters very much on either the 5D or the MKII.

What does this mean?

It means that on a camera like the original 1Ds, which had a much weaker anti aliasing filter, I could shift the 45 fulll left and right to make a stitched pan that was sharp edge to edge, but in both the 5D and the MKII, with the very same lens, the edges go extremely soft. I am pretty sure that it's because of the angle of light hitting the AA filter - the more oblique from the extreme shift, the softer the image. The difference is remarkable and one that completely took me by surprise. For all the things that are better on the newer cameras, not everything is an improvement.

I do this all the time on my 24 and sometimes with the 45 on a 5D and manage to make professional images. At least I have never had any complaints or negative comments from clients. I have never tried it on the 1Ds so I have no comparison. Of course if I need the highest quality I would just shoot it 4x5 anyway.

Kirk,

If you do a full horizontal shift with the 45 on a 5D, the extreme edge will be soft compared to the exact same image on a 1DsMKI. The 5D, however is considerably better than the 1DsMKII. Probably just another thing that Canon never thought too much about when considering the ramifications of a stronger AA filter - like when they decided it would somehow be better to make the tripod threads on the MKII out of aluminum.

Interesting. Thanks.

P.S. Nice shots of Chaco - my second favorite place to go, next to Death Valley and the eastern Sierras.

After some more investigation I think aspect ratio might be what I'm getting after.

For example 35mm is 3:2
Mamiya 645 is 4:3

What would an h3d be?

Anyway wouldn't the higher ratio give me the look I'm going? With 35mm and 45mm lenses I could get in close to my subjects and still get a nice landscape wide view with less distortion than a dslr.

I am I way off here?
Thanks for the help again-

Ed McCulloch
801.836.2192

http://www.mccullochphotography.com

Ed,

You can always crop your Canon to see if you like that aspect ratio. My feeling, for what you seem to be after, is that something higher resolution than the Canon is what is going to make you happiest. The specific lens will depend on what you are trying to do. I love my Canon's but they only have so much resolution.

Peter

Like Kirk, I also have not had the opportunity to compare stitches with these lenses on the 1Ds, but I have to say that I was taken by surprise when I saw the first results from the TS-E 24mm with my 5D. I considered the results plain unacceptable at the far left and right edges of the stitched image, and particularly unacceptable in the corners of course.

I bought my TS-E lenses mainly for the purpose of being able to stitch images of close-ups flawlessly, which was not possible at the time due to the severe parallax errors which a normal lens produced when rotated on a normal tripod head.

However, since those times, I notice that certain stitching programs have improved enormously. Photomerge in CS3 is one, but even better than that, in my view, is Autopano Pro which seems to be able to achieve the impossible. It's getting very close to the ideal stitching program. A few more upgrades and you'll all be able to throw away (er!.. sell) your TS-E lenses.

While software has certainly improved a lot, there are still great reasons to use T/S or just plain shift lenses, especially for affecting plane of focus. If you ever get a chance to put your 45 on a 1Ds - or maybe if Canon's next camera has less of an aa filter, you will see an entirely different lens. I mentioned this to people at Canon but no one understood what I was talking about. Oh well.

I don't quite understand this argument. The AA filter is there to reduce aliasing artifacts. It applies equally to all lenses. If the 24 TS-E appears sharper without it, then all other lenses would also. The Kodak 14n (14mp) had no AA filter. In some respects it was sharper than the Canon 1Ds, but not without disturbing aliasing artifacts.

Okay! I've just stepped outside of my studio and taken 4 handheld shots of the surrounding area with the 50/1.4 on my Canon 5D, in vertical mode.

First, a few words of explanation. The following scene is not in the suburbs where every householder is a tyrant who thinks that any blade of grass that pokes its head more than one inch above the surface should be lopped off.

This is my bolt-hole, a place of retreat, a palce where I can contemplate the foolishness of humanity, commune with nature and process and print my photos.

I'm not about creating green deserts. I want plant life to flourish.

Okay! Now I've got that off my chest, here's the result.

Click to view attachment

It looks OK. First impressions are remarkable. Handheld shots of a scene just a very few metres away, yet it looks pretty accurate. This would not have been possible with any stitching program just a few years ago. Yet this was done automatically in Autopano Pro.

But let's not be deluded by appearances. Let's examine the detail. Alas! It's not a perfect stitch. Here's a blow-up of the offending area.

Click to view attachment

As you can see, the horizontal cladding is staggered. I've got no idea how to fix that. I wouldn't even try. It's a current limitation of the program.

But the exciting thing is, we're getting there.

I feel I'm now obliged to shoot the same scene with tripod. Watch this space for the results .

By the way, here's a crop of the lower left corner. Looks quite sharp to me. These shots were taken at ISO 1600, f11 and 1/60th. It's late in the afternoon.

Click to view attachment

[quote=mcculloched,Apr 27 2007, 01:55 PM]
After some more investigation I think aspect ratio might be what I'm getting after.

For example 35mm is 3:2
Mamiya 645 is 4:3

What would an h3d be?

Anyway wouldn't the higher ratio give me the look I'm going? With 35mm and 45mm lenses I could get in close to my subjects and still get a nice landscape wide view with less distortion than a dslr.

I am I way off here?>>>

hi ed, no I think you are right. I just changed from a 5D to mamiya ZD and the 4:3 format is much nicer. it has more the 4x5 LF feel than the 35mm frame. get a ZD (or any other medium format camera) with the 50mm shift and a 35mm or 45mm lens and you´ll be fine. and you will realy appreciate the better dynamic range too.

stefan marquardt

www stefanmarquardt de

Okay! I re-shot the scene with tripod. Here's the only flaw I can detect in a 6 image stitch (5D held vertical, 50mm lens) on a tripod. The foreground subject matter is just a few metres away, 1 to 9 metres. The verticals are perfect, but the horizontals are slightly bowed. If this shot had been taken with an ultra-wide-angle lens, the verticals would also have been bowed.

The flaw is fixable with a bit of cloning. This result is impressive for an automatic stitch. I expect future upgrades to Autopano Pro will fix flaws like this.

Click to view attachment

Try the Sigma 12-24mm lens, used level it has very little distortion, I kid you not.
There's always something like the Linhof 612, very wide, built in rise and MF film, so top quality.

Kevin.

Kevin,
I have tried the Sigma 12-24. I tried 3 different copies in the store, comparing the lenses with my Sigma 15-30 on my 5D. I didn't direct my attention so much to distortion at the edges. I didn't have to because the resolution fall-off towards the edges was so obvious and plain unacceptable in all 3 lenses I tested.

I didn't buy the lens, of course, but I recommend anyone contemplating buying this lens should test it first. For all I know, there might well be a few copies out there that are acceptably sharp to the edges. Resolution in the central area is reasonably good. I got the impression this lens could be a good choice for a cropped format DSLR.

I don't find any 35mm wides good at the edges on my FF Canon, coming from a MF background this is the biggest drawback of the 35mm system. My 12-24mm is better than my Canon 17-40mm and a Sigma 28 f1.8. I've also tried numorous others in shops. The 12-24 was no worse than the others and better than most. I guess I was lucky with my one.

Kevin.

I do. Sometimes it's only the extreme corners where softness is noticeable. At the 24mm edge, resolution fall-off is sometimes hardly noticeable. I guess I just might have been lucky with my Sigma 15-30.

Consider the following landscape taken at 21mm and f11.

Click to view attachment

Let's look at the lower right corner. There's noticeable softness in the extreme corner.

Click to view attachment

But this softness does not extend all the way up the edge as can be seen in the 100% crop below of the mid right edge.

Click to view attachment

It's a similar situation at 15mm, but I have to say that distortion is more noticeable towards the edges. You wouldn't want to place a portrait close to the edge of a the frame at 15mm FL, unless you were trying to be very creative .