Notable is that the tripod attachment is forward of the shift/tilt mechanism, allowing the lens to be held stationary while any shifting happens for flat pano stitching - completely eliminating any parallax issues the stitching software may have to deal with. There was some dicussion a while ago about creating such a possibility for the Canon lenses. Some folks grokked the idea and I'm sure the folks at SK will have made the mechanism sturdy enough to hold a 1Ds series body.
In my experience, Schneider-K lenses are primo quality, and primo price (when bought new). The position of the tripod attachment is a definite advantage, compared to the TS-E 24/3.5L II and M645 + Mirex tilt-shift lenses that I use, as they're all attached to the tripod with a camera body plate, not a lens tripod mount. I've recently added homemade scales to the A-S rails that I use with this gear, so I can shift the body to match (or cancel out) lens shift, but the S-K solution is a lot better. It's also a lot more expensive. Whether you can justify the added expense depends on circumstances, but I expect these S-K lenses will establish a new 'high water' mark for T-S optical performance.
Thanks Jim - I'll be over right away.
I mentioned it here because of the EF mount.
You're right about their prices - I just sold a 47 SuperAngulon for my 4x5 and was looking at new price$$$
The release was mentioning prices around 2700/2800 Euros.
n0b0 wrote:
I can't wrap my head around the idea of using the tripod attachment as part of the mechanism. How does that work?
It's not part of the mechanism, it's just in front of it, so you can keep the lens stationary while moving the camera, to do flat stitching for multi exposure shots with wider angle but 2x or 3x the number of MP of the camera.(i.e. for large prints). The images simply get pasted on top of each other since it's all the same image being sampled by the camera as it's moved around. n0b0 wrote:
I have another question too, how come they all come in pretty much the same focal length? 50mm and 90mm. Is there a significance to that?
Well, Canon just came out with V. II of their 17 and 24 but not their 45 and 90, so users are covered. These lenses will likely cost ~2800 Euros
As you get to longer FL, the need for TS generally diminishes
AJSJones wrote:
It's not part of the mechanism, it's just in front of it, so you can keep the lens stationary while moving the camera, to do flat stitching for multi exposure shots with wider angle but 2x or 3x the number of MP of the camera.(i.e. for large prints). The images simply get pasted on top of each other since it's all the same image being sampled by the camera as it's moved around.
Well, Canon just came out with V. II of their 17 and 24 but not their 45 and 90, so users are covered. These lenses will likely cost ~2800 Euros
As you get to longer FL, the need for TS generally diminishes ...Show more →
Ah, thanks for the info. Since my TSE17 doesn't have tripod attachment, I have to attach the tripod to the body. Whenever I try to stitch them in PS or PTGUI, there is a small amount of correction. I know some people use some sort of slide on the tripod to compensate for that but I'm not really worried about it. I usually give enough overlap for the software to be able to stitch them seamlessly.
n0b0 wrote:
Since my TSE17 doesn't have tripod attachment, I have to attach the tripod to the body. Whenever I try to stitch them in PS or PTGUI, there is a small amount of correction. I know some people use some sort of slide on the tripod to compensate for that but I'm not really worried about it. I usually give enough overlap for the software to be able to stitch them seamlessly.
Use Photomerge in PS. I have zero issues with it and my 17. When I used PTGUI it was OK but not near the excellence of the latest Photomerge.
AS a matter of fact I have had outstanding results even with the most casually (handheld) taken panos of up to 11 images taken with a P&S and using several rows of images. it is astounding.
With respect to these lenses, I have no reason to doubt their optical excellence and construction, but I question the wisdom of their tilt shift mechanism being of the ball and socket type. This is not nearly as precise and repeatable or secure as the Canon geared movements. In addition the movements are significantly less than their Canon competition I believe.
There's no indication of a ball and socket movement in these cutaway graphics. However, there's no clear indication of how to lock the movements after they've been optimized.
