While I'm looking forward to seeing samples of photographs taken with the 17, it sort of boggles my mind why this would be a big seller. The problem is, even with a 24 tse, architectural photographs just look unnatural because the background diminished so quickly causing quite a bit of distortion even though all the lines are straight. It's is going to be much worse with a 17mm. This is why most architectural photogs I know use medium/large format.
The 17 probably won't be a big seller, but to those who want a really wide tilt/shift lens it will be a great addition to the Canon lens line. I don't do much architectural photography, but I will get one to use for landscapes.
cineski wrote:
The problem is, even with a 24 tse, architectural photographs just look unnatural because the background diminished so quickly causing quite a bit of distortion even though all the lines are straight. It's is going to be much worse with a 17mm. This is why most architectural photogs I know use medium/large format.
Angle of view is angle of view, regardless of format, and the perspective remains the same also. So there is no perspectival advantage to shooting medium or large format. Photographers who want to avoid exaggerated perspective will use the longest lens they can while still fitting the subject in the frame, regardless of what format they're shooting.
In other words, an architectural photographer who needs the Schneider 47mm XL on a 4x5 (roughly a 15mm equivalent for FF SLR) in order to fit a building into a photo will experience the exact same "diminishing background" as the 17mm TS-E user will see in his photos.
Similarly, if a building can be fit into the frame using an 80mm lens on a 4x5 camera, the photographer trying to avoid exaggerated perspective would use the 80mm instead of the 47mm, and the SLR user would employ the lens that corresponds to 80mm, the 24mm TS-E -- not the 17mm TS-E.
well the canadian prices are $2799 for the 24 TSE and $2999 for the 17 TSE - unless Canon Canada further jacks up the prices - which they have pretty much done for most new releases following the press release prices.
cineski wrote:
....The problem is, even with a 24 tse, architectural photographs just look unnatural because the background diminished so quickly causing quite a bit of distortion even though all the lines are straight. It's is going to be much worse with a 17mm....
I used to shoot architecture with a 4x5. Set up a 4x5 with a 90mm lens and a FF DSLR camera with and a 24mm lens at the same spot, and both cameras will record similar images.
I also used the Schneider 47mmXL Super Angulon lens for 4x5 architecture. Set up that on a 4x5, and place a FF DSLR in the same place with a 14mm, and you get two very similar images.
The actual focal length numbers are all relative to format size. All that counts is the 'field of view' that the lens takes in relation to the dimensions of the film plane.
cineski wrote:
This is why most architectural photogs I know use medium/large format.
No, the reason medium and large format is popular for shooting architecture is that those lenses typically exhibit less linear distortion (barreling) than their 35mm format counterparts.
Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting. Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view (Now, I will say, I don't know what the exact 4x5 lens is needed to get the equivalent of 16mm on 35mm, so I'm guessing on this conversion). Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same. Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.
What you are really noticing is the barreling going on. Wide angle lenses for reflex cameras are of the 'retrofocus' design, as opposed to 'symmetrical' design for rangefinder and large format lenses. Retrofocus lenses are simply prone to linear distortion, AKA barreling.
Actually, in an image from a typical wide angle lens on a FF DSLR that has no barreling correction done, the center of the image appears to be bulging out towards the viewer, making the center appear falsely larger. Once corrected in software, things look more normal. As far as diminishing backgrounds, etc, that is nonsense. Reminds me of that crap that Will Crockett was spewing about that stuff several years ago.
No crap spewing intended here . Diminishing view aside, the lens distortion is what I was trying to hit on. I guess it's more an issue of people getting it correct in camera vs. relying of photoshop to fix it in post.
Yes, correcting barreling from a shifted image, like from a 24TSE is always problematic, but not impossible. Correcting it from a standard wide angle (or from a centered TSE lens) is very simple if you know your software and lenses. Photographers who rely solely on Photoshop tools to do this are almost always disappointed and hence rule out the 35mm DSLR platfrom as a result. There are much better software tools available.
cineski wrote:
Ralph, field of view is why photographers chose medium format over 35 (Aside from resolution). Especially for architectural shooting. Large format is even better because you can slap a 47mm on and you are both very wide with very little distortion compared to its 35mm counterpart that needs a 16mm to get the same field of view (Now, I will say, I don't know what the exact 4x5 lens is needed to get the equivalent of 16mm on 35mm, so I'm guessing on this conversion). Distortion on a 16mm lens is huge compared to 47mm, although the field of view will be the same. Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds....Show more →
Not so. In fact, I know of no architectural photographers who shot medium format in the film days. The reason we used 4x5 cameras was for perspective control (70% of the reason) and resolution (the remaining 30%). Most images that the architectural photographer produces never get reproduced larger than a 3x4 spot on a project sheet or an image on a website. Those projects that get published need high quality but today's FF 35mm sensors are up to the task.
"Slapping" a 28 on MF, 47 on LF and a 16 on a 35mm format from the same camera position will yield essentially the exact same shot. I am not sure what 'diminishing backgrounds' means in your post but if you mean things that are far away tend to look further away that has absolutely nothing to do with the format of choice and everythoing to do with the angle of view.
If by 'distortion' you mean barrel distortion then you have a point since most 35mm WA lenses were not designed to the same exacting standards as LF lenses. BTW, MF lenses barrel distort too. If distortion means 'exaggerated perspective' then this too is independent of the format and a function of the angle of view.
To my eye the most offensive 'distortion' is convergence in verticals. This is not truly a distortion because everything in such an image is spatially correct once you get past any optically created barrel distortions, but for reasons of visual psychology and perception it appears to be unnatural and, well, ugly.
If the 17mm TS-E maintains straight lines (no barreling) then it is the rough equivalent of a 68-70mm on a 4x5 by the time I shoot and crop to my standard aspect ratio. That makes it a must-have.
cineski wrote:
Slapping a 28 on medium format vs 47mm on 4x5 vs. 16mm on 35mm gives very different results. Same field of view, but different distortion and diminishing backgrounds.
No, actually if the field of view is the same, then the distortion and diminishing backgrounds will be the same too. (Perspective distortion, that is; lens distortion such as barrel and pincushion is usually lesser with larger format lenses because there aren't the retrofocus-related issues to designing around an SLR's mirror box. That said, most PC lenses, including Canon's TS-E's are usually pretty well corrected for barrel distortion.)
Jim, I guess I need to stand corrected then. I just can't see how a 16mm focal length will give the same distortion as a 45mm with regards to any aspect. And yes, I did bring up barrel distortion before which was a main concern, but my comment about diminishing background was the one that got the most attention here.
Not if you feel bad I don't. I didn't mean to come on so strongly; it was just a slow day at the office and it was this or work! I'm sorry about that; I'll temper my remarks.
Is that normal for TSE?
I know the 17 TSE doesn't take filters, but didn't read anything about the 24 TSE not being able to take polarizers
. Diminishing view aside, the lens distortion is what I was trying to hit on. I guess it's more an issue of people getting it correct in camera vs. relying of photoshop to fix it in post.