I am very interested in the new Canon tilt/shift lenses that will be for sale shortly. I have read on this site that some photographers prefer these lenses for landscape photography to increase the sharpness of the photo from front to back. I also see where other photographers use a regular lens and combine several images with different focus points to get a photo with an extended area of sharpness. So my question is this: Is a tilt/shift lens accomplishing the same thing that those who are combining several images with different focus points? And, if this is true, is it easier to use a tilt/shift lens to accomplish this (I have never tried one, so don't know what it's like to use) than trying to focus at different points and combining the image in Photoshop? I'm trying to decide if such a lens is for me. Thanks for your help...
Carol - Check out these two tutorials on tilt/shift lenses from Cambridge in Colour : Tilt/Shift 1 Tilt/Shift 2
So as to your specific questions, no, a tilt/shift lens does not do the exact same thing as focus stacking (combining multiple focused images). But it can have a similar effect in terms of things both near and far being sharp. Focus stacking is actually better (given enough images) depending on the scene because you can make everything appear sharp. With a tilt/shift you still only have one plane of focus. Of course, you could combine the tilt/shift and focus stacking and still get whatever you wanted.
Hopefully some of those here that use tilt/shift (which isn't me) can give some more guidance...
Tilt/shift lenses mimic the movements of a view camera to control perspective and/or DOF. Once you get the hang of it tilt/shift is the most direct method. See [http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses2.htm] for a tutorial on tilt/shift lens use. I have a piece of software (Helicon Focus) for combining frames shot at different focus points. It works fine but you have to shoot multiple frames focused at different points with no movement. Using a tripod in the studio that is doable but it can be a challenge outdoors with wind blowing.
One advantage of the software approach is combining several narrowly focused frames to tightly control what is in focus and increase blurring in areas you do not want sharp (see [http://jimbullardsphotoblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/depth-of-field-enhancement.html]). This is the opposite of how most folks use focus combining software, i.e. to maximize DOF, but an approach that appeals to me for some subjects. For maximizing DOF in the field, I would prefer the hardware approach of a shift/tilt lens.
Jim Bullard
Posted by Richard Todd on May 27, 2009 at 12:57 PM
I would go with the lens, not only for its tilt feature, but even more for the shifts. That was one of my favourite things about using a view camera.
Multi image merges are great but if you want to get a focal plane in focus like a field of flowers at full lens speed( nice on windy mornings) tilt shift on is the way to go with 35mm. This will only give you more photoshop options later. Jim Bullard states hardware first.
I do like mine more with a full frame and full frame viewfinder, not necessary but I think easier to use.
TS lenses and image stacking are really solutions to two different problems. There is overlap in what they solve, but they are different solutions.
The idea of tilts (and swings in LF) is to place the plane of focus exactly where you want it to be. This can be along the subject plane or against the subject plane, depending if you want to maximize or minimize the apparent DOF. In the former case, you do not increase the depth of field. Rather, since you put it exactly on the subject plane, it looks like you have increased the DOF since everything you want is in focus. Stopping down a bit only increases this illusion.
Image stacking, on the other hand, gains DOF by selecting from multiple exposures the sharpest areas and combining them. It is a artificial way of creating more DOF but is a great way of doing so. It has the advantage that if you have multiple planes which need to be in focus, such as an interior hallway or a curved canyon, you can create an image which accomplishes this. It is also great for macro, where DOF basically does not exist or DOF simply won't cover the entire subject. The disadvantage is that it will require multiple shots which will need some care in shooting.
Niether is better and combining image stacking with a TS lens would be a killer combination.
Being that the tilt/shift image is one exposure, you don't have to concern yourself with the possibility of subject motion between taking the multiple exposures. Also with no movement of focusing there is no change in magnification of the image over the width or length of the photo.
The biggest advantage to image stacking, relative to the T/S lens approach, is something that has mysteriously been neglected in the discussion: it's dramatically cheaper. :) A lifetime license for Helicon Focus (Lite version) is less than 1/20 the cost of a single tilt/shift lens. You also don't have to haul the software around with you in the field. However, if money--and weight--are no object, I'd go the T/S approach because, yes...there absolutely are time where movement of objects (wind-blown flowers and foliage immediately spring to mind) make image stacking essentially impossible..
Carol
I have the Canon 24mm TS lens, the older version. I bought it for the shift feature and I don't use the tilt feature. At 24mm, stopped down, too shallow a depth of field for the most part isn't a big problem for me. Before I bought the lens, it was highly recommended to me - I was told it would be my favorite lens. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but it definitely has its place. I have found that it is not wide enough on my 1.3 crop factor 1-series Canon body. It definitely would be more useful on a a full-frame body. The tilt feature, I expect, would be more useful on one of the longer focal length T/S lenses.
My experience has been that the only real way to know how well a lens will suit my needs is to buy it find out for myself. Good luck.
I'm an old large-format shooter turned digital. I would've had a real hard time switching if not for the TS-E's. One thing I can say, using rise and fall (shift is moving side to side) is something that the computer cannot do very well. I find that I use these movements more than the tilt feature. I have all 3 of the TS-E's and I'll have the new 24mm and 17mm as soon as they are released. I have a very sharp copy of the TS-E 24mm L with the modification done (it will be for sale very soon!). This sets the lens in a tilt/rise & fall mode. As for the tilt feature, this is where Buck and others are missing the boat on this lens and loose sharpness. With tilt I can use f/6.3 to f/8, at most f/11, for most every near/far situations where not using the tilt would force you to use f/22. At f/22 defraction sets in and really degrades the image. Defractions starts reducing sharpness beyond f/11.
With the two new lenses you do not have to worry about the modifications. They have the ability to rotate on dual axis giving the photographer total control with shift, rise and fall, Tilt and swing! This is why they are sooooooo expensive, double the cost of the MK1 versions. Well, and they both have HUGE glass!
Discussion
10 repliesTilt/Shift 1
Tilt/Shift 2
So as to your specific questions, no, a tilt/shift lens does not do the exact same thing as focus stacking (combining multiple focused images). But it can have a similar effect in terms of things both near and far being sharp. Focus stacking is actually better (given enough images) depending on the scene because you can make everything appear sharp. With a tilt/shift you still only have one plane of focus. Of course, you could combine the tilt/shift and focus stacking and still get whatever you wanted.
Hopefully some of those here that use tilt/shift (which isn't me) can give some more guidance...
One advantage of the software approach is combining several narrowly focused frames to tightly control what is in focus and increase blurring in areas you do not want sharp (see [http://jimbullardsphotoblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/depth-of-field-enhancement.html]). This is the opposite of how most folks use focus combining software, i.e. to maximize DOF, but an approach that appeals to me for some subjects. For maximizing DOF in the field, I would prefer the hardware approach of a shift/tilt lens.
Jim Bullard
Multi image merges are great but if you want to get a focal plane in focus like a field of flowers at full lens speed( nice on windy mornings) tilt shift on is the way to go with 35mm. This will only give you more photoshop options later. Jim Bullard states hardware first.
I do like mine more with a full frame and full frame viewfinder, not necessary but I think easier to use.
The idea of tilts (and swings in LF) is to place the plane of focus exactly where you want it to be. This can be along the subject plane or against the subject plane, depending if you want to maximize or minimize the apparent DOF. In the former case, you do not increase the depth of field. Rather, since you put it exactly on the subject plane, it looks like you have increased the DOF since everything you want is in focus. Stopping down a bit only increases this illusion.
Image stacking, on the other hand, gains DOF by selecting from multiple exposures the sharpest areas and combining them. It is a artificial way of creating more DOF but is a great way of doing so. It has the advantage that if you have multiple planes which need to be in focus, such as an interior hallway or a curved canyon, you can create an image which accomplishes this. It is also great for macro, where DOF basically does not exist or DOF simply won't cover the entire subject. The disadvantage is that it will require multiple shots which will need some care in shooting.
Niether is better and combining image stacking with a TS lens would be a killer combination.
I have the Canon 24mm TS lens, the older version. I bought it for the shift feature and I don't use the tilt feature. At 24mm, stopped down, too shallow a depth of field for the most part isn't a big problem for me. Before I bought the lens, it was highly recommended to me - I was told it would be my favorite lens. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but it definitely has its place. I have found that it is not wide enough on my 1.3 crop factor 1-series Canon body. It definitely would be more useful on a a full-frame body. The tilt feature, I expect, would be more useful on one of the longer focal length T/S lenses.
My experience has been that the only real way to know how well a lens will suit my needs is to buy it find out for myself. Good luck.
I'm an old large-format shooter turned digital. I would've had a real hard time switching if not for the TS-E's. One thing I can say, using rise and fall (shift is moving side to side) is something that the computer cannot do very well. I find that I use these movements more than the tilt feature. I have all 3 of the TS-E's and I'll have the new 24mm and 17mm as soon as they are released. I have a very sharp copy of the TS-E 24mm L with the modification done (it will be for sale very soon!). This sets the lens in a tilt/rise & fall mode. As for the tilt feature, this is where Buck and others are missing the boat on this lens and loose sharpness. With tilt I can use f/6.3 to f/8, at most f/11, for most every near/far situations where not using the tilt would force you to use f/22. At f/22 defraction sets in and really degrades the image. Defractions starts reducing sharpness beyond f/11.
With the two new lenses you do not have to worry about the modifications. They have the ability to rotate on dual axis giving the photographer total control with shift, rise and fall, Tilt and swing! This is why they are sooooooo expensive, double the cost of the MK1 versions. Well, and they both have HUGE glass!
Jerry - I'm in the middle of reading the Ultimate Guide. What a great book you guys put together!