Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2016 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking

  
 
melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


karlfoto wrote:
I was curious to see how much further back one would have to move, using a 24mm to get a similar fov as a 17mm. Seems to be 75cm. Anyone done a similar experiment?


No experiment required; you can calculate it.

You could use the angle of view and trigonometry, but the easier way is with similar triangles. You need be 24/17 of the distance you already are from the subject. In the case of the last time I wanted an ultra-wide when shooting landscape on a hike, that would have been ~400m, or right out of the valley and through a rock wall.



Apr 12, 2016 at 03:16 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


karlfoto wrote:
I was curious to see how much further back one would have to move, using a 24mm to get a similar fov as a 17mm. Seems to be 75cm. Anyone done a similar experiment?


As melcat said, it can be calculated.

How much further back depends on the size of the subject.

For a 1m wide subject to fill a full frame sensor, your distance from the subject is 0.47 m for a 17mmm lens and 0.67 m for a 24mm lens; difference 0.19 m.

For a 100m wide subject (which better represents a scenic feature), the distance is 47 m for a 17mm lens and 67 m for a 24mm lens; difference 19.4 m.



Apr 12, 2016 at 04:58 AM
karlfoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


Right, so my lounge and kitchen doesn't quite stack up as an experiment.

Thanx for the actual values.



Apr 12, 2016 at 08:56 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


I think the subject came up earlier in this thread, so here is a photograph someone to of me with the bag I use to carry my camera and a couple of lenses on the trail. (The tripod is an old one that I no longer use.)

http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/HumanWorld/People/Photographers/danwithtoploadtripodwhitney200808111.jpg

Dan



Apr 13, 2016 at 10:18 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


jcolwell wrote:
As melcat said, it can be calculated.

How much further back depends on the size of the subject.

For a 1m wide subject to fill a full frame sensor, your distance from the subject is 0.47 m for a 17mmm lens and 0.67 m for a 24mm lens; difference 0.19 m.

For a 100m wide subject (which better represents a scenic feature), the distance is 47 m for a 17mm lens and 67 m for a 24mm lens; difference 19.4 m.


Melcat and Jim,
I remember the word trigonometry, but if you put a gun to my head I doubt I can remember which sides of the triangle are referred to by say cosine. Having said that I'm wondering with Jim's example just how that plays out on a truly wide landscape at a distance or a fairly tall object (say tree or building) that one probably stands closer too. I've read a couple of the math based tutorials on the Scheimpflug principle, but have a hard time converting it to a user friendly rubric. I always shoot off a tripod when using the 24TSE, but most of my efforts haven't worked well. Frustrated as I really like the lens and its potential.

Thanks for any directions to tutorials or advice.

Robert



Apr 13, 2016 at 10:45 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


OntheRez wrote:
Melcat and Jim,
I remember the word trigonometry, ...


Hi Robert,

Geometry rules! Trigonometry and proportional ratios are the norm in photography. I've attached two examples from some of my calculator spreadsheets (which are on my site);

1. a table showing distance from subject for a full-width full-frame image, for different focal lengths.

2. a diagram showing the amount of tilt required to make the plane of focus for a vertical sensor line up with the horizontal plane (i.e. the ground), as a function of height above the ground, with different curves for different focal lengths, based on the Scheimpflug Principle,

Ref. "Harold Merklinger on the Scheimpflug Principle", http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/#SR (free document downloads)

Talk about proportional ratios! The "distance table" doesn't even have dimensions (e.g. feet, km, miles), because the relationship between subject width and distance from subject is independent of dimensions (i.e. it's a dimensionless ratio). In this case, the actual numbers are calculated for a subject that fills the 36mm width of a FF DSLR sensor. For example, if you're using a 17mm lens and you want to fill the frame with a subject that's 0.75 feet wide, then you want to place the camera sensor 0.35 feet from the subject. Alternatively, if you want to take a full frame image of a landscape scene that's 10 miles wide, with an 85mm lens, then you place the camera 23.6 miles away from the scene.

The math behind the tilt curves is a little more complicated than the distance-from table, but it's still basic geometry. This graph is called "Mirex T-S Adapter", because the Mirex allows up to 10 degrees of tilt. The Canon TS-E lenses allow up to 8 degrees of tilt. Each of the nine curves in this graph is for a different focal length, with focal length labels shown in the boxes at the right side of the graph. The curves in the graph alternate between thick and thin lines, corresponding to the thick and thin borders on the focal-length label boxes.

So, if I'm using a 150mm lens on my tripod (which puts the camera sensor at about 1.65 m above the ground), then I need about 5.2 degrees of tilt to align the plane of focus with the ground, while the camera is pointed horizontally (say, at the horizon). In this case, the angle between the vertical sensor and the horizontal ground plane is 90 degrees. If I point the camera downwards, then I need less tilt, because the angle between the horizontal ground and now-leaning sensor is less than 90 degrees. That's where the small "correction for body angle" table below the graph comes in. For this example with a 150mm lens on my tripod (1.65 m above the ground), if I tilt the camera body (and untitled lens) down by 30 degrees, then I would use the 0.67 "correction factor', which says I need 5.2 x 0.67 = 3.5 degrees of tilt on the tilt lens.

OTOH, if I'm doing macro photography with a tilt lens, then I'm getting pretty close to the subject, and the height above the horizontal plane (i.e. table top) starts to get pretty small, and so the amount of tilt required increases dramatically.

Anyway, I use the "tilt curves" and "body angle corrections" to roughly determine my initial tilt angle, and then I use the tried-and-true, iterative process of tilt, focus, tilt, focus, tilt... to get to the final solution. I find using an initial tilt angle from these curves speeds things up a bit, but the first combination of tilt angle and focus distance never seems to work out quite right (which is why I use my smart phone as a remote, high mag. screen for this stuff). I generally follow the "tilt near, focus far" school of thought, but some people do it the opposite way. Some people....

There are many excellent resources at the Merklinger site for stuff like focusing Large Format cameras (i.e. tilt & shift), focusing in general, and weird bokeh (to name a few).

Cheers,
Jim



© jcolwell 2016


Distance from subject for full-width FF image (landscape mode)







Tilt angle for horizontal plane of focus (sensor vertical)




Apr 13, 2016 at 03:33 PM
anscochrome
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


jcolwell wrote:
At 35mm and 40mm, the EF 40/2.8 STM is on-par with the Zeiss 35/2 ZE and Contax 35-70/3.4, and these three are slightly better than the EF 16-35/4L IS and EF 24-70/2.8 L II USM (but not by much).



I have the 40mm F 2.8, and I love using it, and always knew it was good, but I never knew it was THAT good



Apr 13, 2016 at 08:09 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


anscochrome wrote:
I have the 40mm F 2.8, and I love using it, and always knew it was good, but I never knew it was THAT good


At f/8 and infinity focus, mine is.



Apr 13, 2016 at 08:11 PM
karlfoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


So what you are saying is that for a 17 ts-e, if the body angle was zero, and the tripod height was 1.7m, the aot would be about .55 degrees. And if the body was angled downwards by 30 degrees, you would multiply the .55 degree by the factor .67 to get the new angle?

The other question I have is regards checking for decentered elements in the 16-35. I saw on another forum, that you shoot the same object in all four corners of the frame, and if they are all equally sharp, there is no issue. Is this an accurate technique to use? If so, for this zoom, would you need to do it for 16, 20, 24 and 35 fov? I am assuming that it would need to be at f8 or f1?



Apr 15, 2016 at 12:38 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


karlfoto wrote:
So what you are saying is that for a 17 ts-e, if the body angle was zero, and the tripod height was 1.7m, the aot would be about .55 degrees. And if the body was angled downwards by 30 degrees, you would multiply the .55 degree by the factor .67 to get the new angle?


Yes, although I'd prefer to say tilt angle, rather than "aot".




Apr 15, 2016 at 07:51 AM
karlfoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


Ok happy to use 'ta'

I have a few additional questions on my 17 ts-e lens for which I have historically only used for architectural shift. With traditional cameras with bellows movements, back tilt allows to adjust the relative size of objects. So if the mountains are looking small and less grand when using a wide angle lens, you can back tilt the film plane to increase their size.

Can one do this on a fixed 35mm system by angling the camera downwards and then tilting the lens downwards and adjusting the shift to get the view that you want? I have not found anything on the web, so am assuming that this won't work?

Is this a good app for calculating tilt angles https://itunes.apple.com/fi/app/tilt-calculator/id529611767?mt=8

Edited on Apr 15, 2016 at 04:23 PM · View previous versions



Apr 15, 2016 at 03:40 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


karlfoto wrote:
...Can one do this on a fixed 35mm system by angling the camera downwards and then tilting the lens downwards and adjusting the shift to get the view that you want?


Well, to a certain extent, sure. When you point the camera down, perspective distortion causes parallel vertical lines to diverge as they go up. This will tend to make the mountains proportionately bigger. Of course, you have far fewer movements with a "35mm system" T-S lens, and so you're more constrained.

karlfoto wrote:
Is this a good app for calculating tilt angles https://itunes.apple.com/fi/app/tilt-calculator/id529611767?mt=8


I don't do iTunes.



Apr 15, 2016 at 03:48 PM
karlfoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · 16-35 f4 vs 17 tse + 24 is usm + 40 stem quality for hiking


Would one be better served by just using the distort feature in photoshop to artificially increase the size of the distant mountains?

So after a bit or reading (i suppose i should already know this being the owner of a tilt shift lens) I can increase the dof by making use of tilt and corrective focusing. This does seem tedious, and difficult when the environmental conditions are extreme. We can calculate J and the tilt angle from the above table, is there a way of calculating the focus as well and having a table for that?

Does the above become null and void if we can just focus stack? I have shot three or four different images with different focus points and then pulled them together in ps this has worked well to increase my area of sharp focus.



Apr 15, 2016 at 04:24 PM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.