ts-e questions

I'm thinking about getting one of the TS-E lenses.

I'm mostly interested in the tilt behavior to control depth of field. Shifting doesn't interest me that much. If it did, the 24 would be the one to get. So, I'm torn between the 45 and the 90. I currently have a D60 but may very well upgrade to the 1D2, for what that's worth.

Has anyone used either or both of these lenses? How do you like them? Are they hand holdable at all?

What would you recommend for, well, general purpose work? I use my 85/1.2 a lot wide open to get very shallow DOF and really enjoy that. This looks to be a very interesting way to control the field of focus.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Jonatyhan,

Jonathan B. Leffert said:

I'm thinking about getting one of the TS-E lenses.

I'm mostly interested in the tilt behavior to control depth of
field.

Click to expand...

Could you tell us in just what respect you mean that?

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Doug Kerr said:

I'm mostly interested in the tilt behavior to control depth of
field.

Click to expand...

Could you tell us in just what respect you mean that?

Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake, sorry.

I'm interested in reducing not increasing depth of field. I've seen some sample pictures posted of people taking with their heads in focus while their arms and shoulders are out of focus. This interests me, but I'm not so interested in people photography—I'm more interested in photography of found objects and the like.

Does that help?

Jonathan

Johnathan,

Jonathan B. Leffert said:

Doug Kerr said:

Jonathan B. Leffert said:

I'm mostly interested in the tilt behavior to control depth of
field.

Click to expand...

Could you tell us in just what respect you mean that?

Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake, sorry.

I'm interested in reducing not increasing depth of field. I've
seen some sample pictures posted of people taking with their heads
in focus while their arms and shoulders are out of focus. This
interests me, but I'm not so interested in people photography—I'm
more interested in photography of found objects and the like.

Click to expand...

Well, a tilt lens does not allow depth of field to be either increased or decreased. What it does allow is for you to tilt the plane of best focus.

I guess you could set the lens tilt so that the plane of focus passes through the subject's face but goes in front of or behind the body parts you wish to have out of focus. Then if your lens (aperture, etc.) provided a shallow depth of field, you might get the effect you want.

Best regards,

Doug

Jonathan B. Leffert said:

I'm interested in reducing not increasing depth of field. I've
seen some sample pictures posted of people taking with their heads
in focus while their arms and shoulders are out of focus.

Click to expand...

This is a bit of a tangent, but you can produce a decent facsimile of this selective-shallow effect via post-processing without much effort (e.g., select, feather, and one of the blurs). It's going the other way that's somewhere between labor intensive and nearly impossible.

Here's an article a bit more on point:
http://www.photosafaris.com/TiltLenses.asp

--
Jack L.

Doug Kerr said:

Well, a tilt lens does not allow depth of field to be either
increased or decreased. What it does allow is for you to tilt the
plane of best focus.

Click to expand...

Of course I agree with this, Doug, but let's not get too strict about the conversational definition. One might say that tilting can yield more apparent DOF, for example.

--

• Jack L.

Jack,

jackal said:

Doug Kerr said:

Well, a tilt lens does not allow depth of field to be either
increased or decreased. What it does allow is for you to tilt the
plane of best focus.

Click to expand...

Of course I agree with this, Doug, but let's not get too strict
about the conversational definition. One might say that tilting can
yield more apparent DOF, for example.

Click to expand...

Or, in Jonathyan's case, perhaps less!

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Doug Kerr said:

Of course I agree with this, Doug, but let's not get too strict
about the conversational definition. One might say that tilting can
yield more apparent DOF, for example.

Click to expand...

Or, in Jonathyan's case, perhaps less!

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's more to the point. If I am shooting a portrait and tilt—back, I think—so that the plane of focus shifts so that the person's eyes are in focus but, by the time we've reached their shoulders, the plane of focus has shifted to be behind them, we've effectively decreased the field of focus.

Let's not get caught up on terminology here. The point is, that tilting is used in landscapes (usually) to increase the amount of stuff in focus. In my case, I'm not interested in shooting landscapes as much and am more interested in tilting to decrease and to control the stuff that's in focus.

That said, can someone please provide experience shooting with the 45 and the 90 ts-e's?

Yes, I know much of this bluring could be done in post processing; I'm not interested in that.

I'm split between the 45 and the 90, so I'd like to hear from people who have one or the other or both and what there thoughts were about why to get one over the other.

Thanks,

Jonathan

the TS/E is f3.5 wide open so id guess that even with a bit of tilt, you would not get much more DOF effect than just shooting the 24L wide open. not to mention its a bit sharper, and of course has AF so you can use it for a wide range of low light shooting.

The TSE's are pretty limited in what you can use them for and at over a grand for a special purpose lens, thats pretty steep.

Also I dont think a 90 TSE would really give up much in terms of shallow DOF to your 85 1.2L, thats about as good as it gets in that regard
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad