Sign In



Join the largest online community for nature
photographers. An account to participate in
our forums is free! We also offer other
membership options.



Please enter the email address associated with your account. If you have not edited this in your
profile then enter the email address that you used when creating your account.

Trouble Signing In?

We apologize if you are having problems signing in. With our latest website upgrades there have been some changes that may cause a sign in problem until cookies are cleared using the steps below.
  1. Navigate to Forums Home in the website navigation bar and click on the link Delete all board cookies located under the Browse Forums page title.
  2. Close all NatureScapes tabs/windows and exit the browser entirely.
  3. Open the browser and make sure it's not opening up any NatureScapes pages.
  4. Delete the NSN-specific cookies in your browser or, if you don't have an objection, delete all cookies. The NSN cookies have either .naturescapes.net or .www.naturescapes.net as part of their name. For help with deleting cookies in your browser please check out this helpful guide on www.aboutcookies.org.
  5. Exit the browser again, reopen it, and try to sign in again.
If deleting board and browser cookies does not resolve your issue please send us an email at editors@naturescapes.net with the following information: We are committed to providing quality customer service and website support. We will respond to your email as quickly as possible.

Sign Up for Our Newsletters

Packed with articles, tips, workshop news, store coupons, sales alerts and more!

We respect your privacy—your email address will not be shared or sold. You may unsubscribe at any time and control which
newsletters you receive.

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 13 posts | 
by DOglesby on Wed May 16, 2012 10:40 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: San Diego
Member #:01155
I've been thinking for a while about picking up a tilt-shift lens. I love the idea of using them for easy pano work and obviously like the idea of manipulating the plane of focus.

I shoot Canon. If you were to buy one for landscape work what would it be? The 24mm seems like the obvious choice but I wonder if the 45 would be more practical? I think I'd use the 45 more for my style of shooting though I would probably get more dramatic images with the 24. But, I already have the Zeiss 21mm Distagon. It's not TS of course but the focal length is so close...I don't think I'd use the 17 nearly enough to justify buying it. Just a few random thoughts. Interested in what others think and open to changing my opinion on the 17 and 24.

What to do....what to do....what to do....
Cheers,
Doug

by E.J. Peiker on Wed May 16, 2012 11:24 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 68546
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Back when I was shooting Canon I had the 24, the 45 and the 90. The 45 got by far the most use. BUT, in the Canon system, if memory serves, the 45 is still the very old lens that doesn't have the ability to tilt and shift in the same direction without a hardware modification that then makes it impossible to tilt and shift in a 90 degree direction to each other. the new Canon 24 and 17 do allow this and are optically superior to the 45 but the 45 was a very good lens especially since you generally shoot it around f/5.6 to f/8.

by DOglesby on Thu May 17, 2012 12:02 am
User avatar
DOglesby
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: San Diego
Member #:01155
Thanks EJ!
Cheers,
Doug

by richard bledsoe on Thu May 17, 2012 10:07 am
richard bledsoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 170
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Location: San Diego, ca.
I had a big debate whether to get the 17 or 24 first. I bought the 17 to use for starscapes as well as landscapes. I like showing the stars as points rather than trails and 17mm at about 25 seconds does the job. Definitely a specialty lens but I have shot some landscapes so far.

The 24 will be my next purchase and will be used for cityscapes and landscapes.

EJ did a poll recently that showed the majority of forum members here would choose a 24 for landscape if limited to only one lens. You may want to refer to that thread. I have no luck using the search function on this site so can't show a link, sorry.

I will consider the 45 and 90 when they are updated as they are quite inferior to the newer 17 and 24.

by E.J. Peiker on Thu May 17, 2012 10:23 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 68546
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Here is that poll:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=212989&p=2064304

by E.J. Peiker on Thu May 17, 2012 10:25 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 68546
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
BTW at 17mm you should be able to go up to 35 sec without star trails forming - definitely 30 seconds. General rule of thumb is 600/FL. If you want to be really conservative go 500/FL to calculate the maximum shutter open time without star trails.

by richard bledsoe on Thu May 17, 2012 11:03 am
richard bledsoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 170
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Location: San Diego, ca.
Thanks for posting the link to the poll. I'm aware of the 500 and 600 rule but when I look at my stars at 100% in RAW I can see small trails at the longer shutter speeds. May not show in a print, I will have to check that out.

I guess this thread has inspired me, I just ordered the 5D MKIII and the 24 TS-E in stock at B&H as a bundle. The lens alone is $150. off now until 6/2/12 and buying with a qualifying body gets you another $150. off, so $300. total discount. Not bad for a lens I have been lusting after.

by E.J. Peiker on Thu May 17, 2012 11:19 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 68546
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Ah the power of NSN - we should get a kickback from Canon and Nikon :)

by Craig Lipski on Thu May 17, 2012 11:49 am
User avatar
Craig Lipski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2890
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: The bustling metropolis of Fowlerville, Michigan
Member #:00495
E.J,
I should probably know this, but your 600/FL rule of thumb - with a Canon aps-c sensor, I'd be multiplying my focal length by 1.6, correct?
(Sorry to hijack the thread)
Good light,
Craig

by E.J. Peiker on Thu May 17, 2012 11:58 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 68546
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yes and no. All a 1.6 crop camera does is crop out the center of the image (it does not magnify it) so it really isn't different from that aspect, but you have to blow up a 1.6x cropped frame more (so here you do magnify) to get to the same output size so in that case yes..' but ... for the same field of view you use a smaller focal length on a cropped camera...

So its not as easy as it seems. If you use the 500/fl rule you can probably get away with it for any situation unless you are looking at it on a pixel level view.

by DOglesby on Thu May 17, 2012 8:49 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: San Diego
Member #:01155
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Ah the power of NSN - we should get a kickback from Canon and Nikon :)


Hey, it's my thread! I should get a royalty too! :lol:
Cheers,
Doug

by E.J. Peiker on Thu May 17, 2012 9:02 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 68546
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
DOglesby wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Ah the power of NSN - we should get a kickback from Canon and Nikon :)


Hey, it's my thread! I should get a royalty too! :lol:

If it worked that way, Canon, Nikon, RRS, Adobe, Gitzo, etc etc etc all would owe me big time :)

by DOglesby on Thu May 17, 2012 9:19 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: San Diego
Member #:01155
Touche!
Cheers,
Doug

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
13 posts | 
  

People Who Like This:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group