Tilt and shift lenses, do you use them? (Page 2): Agree. But if you need correction only occasionally and can "make do" with it, no need to go to expense of a t/s lens: They ain't...

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

JPL wrote:

Yes, that is the problem with post processing, it can do some of what tilt and shift lenses do, but usually not as well and not all of it. I actually think there is a good future ahead for tilt and shift lenses because what they do can not be done or not done as well in post processing. The only thing post processing and in camera features do relatively well of the tilt and shift features is the miniature effect.

Agree. But if you need correction only occasionally and can "make do" with it, no need to go to expense of a t/s lens: They ain't cheap! It all depends on how much and how serious you are.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Not a user. With Photoshop it has become a waste of time to use.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Fotoartist wrote:

Not a user. With Photoshop it has become a waste of time to use.

And LOTS more money!

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

I have the 17mm, 24mm and the 45mm. Using them primarily for interior architecture. The 24mm TSe is my workhorse for interiors and exteriors, while the 17mm is useful for the smaller rooms I need to deliver. The 45mm I use, as Alan does, for table top and product photography.

I don't do a lot of landscape, but will use the TSe's then or when traveling, I always pack at least the 24mm. The new trio that Canon unveiled are VERY expensive. I am interested in the 90 and 135, but if the need arises, I would probably go through CPS loan and schedule the shoot accordingly.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

True. But for me mostly the time. It used to take me 10-15 minutes to get one architectural shot. Now I can get an extra 10-15 shots in the same time. I just do the straightening at home. I've never looked back.

revhen wrote:

And LOTS more money!

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

I went full-retro (and cheap) with a film-era PC-NIKKOR 35mm f/2.8. It is fully manual and I use it primarily on my film SLR (Nikon FE) but it will also work in manual mode on my D7100 though the crop sensor makes it a 52mm equivalent. But at under $140 it was a no-brainer and it's very good glass and ruggedly built. Shift only though; no tilts.

shelty Loc: Medford, OR

Why should I use a tilt/shift lens when I can do the same thing in Photoshop?

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

Fotoartist wrote:

True. But for me mostly the time. It used to take me 10-15 minutes to get one architectural shot. Now I can get an extra 10-15 shots in the same time. I just do the straightening at home. I've never looked back.

My first interior shooting was the same, using PS to straighten. That was until my wife (as interior designer) complained about the distorted sizes of cabinetry and furniture. I went from a 16-35mm to a panoramic head and now to TSe lenses and I've never looked back. I'd rather spend the time on location to minimize "fixing" in PS.

JPL

jdubu wrote:

My first interior shooting was the same, using PS to straighten. That was until my wife (as interior designer) complained about the distorted sizes of cabinetry and furniture. I went from a 16-35mm to a panoramic head and now to TSe lenses and I've never looked back. I'd rather spend the time on location to minimize "fixing" in PS.

That is my experience too, distortion will sneak up on you when correcting in Photoshop. I guess that talented users of Photoshop can manage this better than the average user. But it is a thing to consider, at least for serious work.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

shelty wrote:

Why should I use a tilt/shift lens when I can do the same thing in Photoshop?

It all depends on what you consider the same thing in Photoshop. For some people, some distortion outside the center of the shot is acceptable and not a big deal. Straightening or selective focus in post does what they want, even if they lose a bit of the photo in the processing.

I use a tilt-shift because I, nor my clients, want distorted views of their work in their portfolios. Many times, the client is on hand to see the tethered camera view on screen and we discuss the pros and cons of the composition. What they see in that view is what the finished photo will encompass. If I have to crop down that shot to straighten the room or fix a distortion in the edges, I may never see that client again. The same thing if I used a wide angle lens and they see the tethered composition with the distortion... Photoshop cannot fix distortion like a tilt-shift can avoid it, so, for me, it's not the same thing in Photoshop.

JPL

jdubu wrote:

It all depends on what you consider the same thing... (show quote)

This is very informative for me. I had not thought of this what you see is what you get need when thinking about the difference between tilt and shift lenses and Photoshop.

Bob Werre

Over the years, I've used corrections on cameras from 8 x 10 on down. I own a Fuji 6 x 8 and several lenses+ Leaf back that handle movements in studio. I own the Nikon 85 T/S lens and use it whenever possible for location DOF situations when image stacking won't work. I have rented either a 28 or 35 Canon version--the owner had the Canon altered with a Nikon mount--works well. I offered to buy it, but he won't sell!

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Fotoartist wrote:

True. But for me mostly the time. It used to take me 10-15 minutes to get one architectural shot. Now I can get an extra 10-15 shots in the same time. I just do the straightening at home. I've never looked back.

"But for me . . . ." That's the point. If you take a good amount of architectural shot, then a t/s lens is a must. But if you do it only occasionally, then do it in post processing. The purchase is dictated by individual need.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Actually I've been an architectural photographer for over 20 years. Started with 4x5s. Used 35mm Tilt and shift lenses. Went to a Nodal point bracket with wide angles and panos to keep verticals straight. Then figured out that Photoshop can do all that better while I was back at home freeing me up to get more and better shots and angles while I was on the job site.

revhen wrote:

"But for me . . . ." That's the point. If you take a good amount of architectural shot, then a t/s lens is a must. But if you do it only occasionally, then do it in post processing. The purchase is dictated by individual need.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Fotoartist wrote:

Not a user. With Photoshop it has become a waste of time to use.

Then you don't really understand how a T/S lens works and how it will always produce an image superior to one that is adjusted in Photoshop to remove keystoning. But it may not make a difference in the material you shoot. I like to use the full resolution of my camera when making images, and software solutions compromise that.