Tilt-shift lenses are considered standard equipment for architectural photography, allowing you to correct common geometric issues to ensure your images both realistic and of the highest possible quality. But with modern cameras and software, do you really need a tilt-shift lens, or can you get by using other techniques? This excellent video discusses the issue to help you decide.
Coming to you from Matthew Anderson, this great video discusses whether you really need a tilt-shift lens for architectural photography. There is no doubt that tilt-shift lenses are tremendously useful and that once you get used to working with them, they can save you a lot of time in post and ensure the highest levels of image quality. On top of that, they can allow to create some rather neat creative effects. That being said, tilt-shift lenses are some of the most specialized options out there and are quite expensive, so if you do not regularly have a need for their capabilities, it is worth considering if you are better served by post-processing techniques for dealing with the issues they address. Check out the video above for the full rundown Anderson.
If you would like to learn more about architectural photography, check out our "Where Art Meets Architecture" series!
5 Comments
It's, in my opinion, still best to correct from the lens than not leaving enough space to crop during corrections in post simply because if you miss your approximation then you might run short when distorting the original image in post to correct the perspectives. I have only a 90TS and don't do architecture, so it's a guess, but I'm pretty sure I like to be certain I have all I need each time I leave the location of a shoot no matter what it is.
Correcting in post (or trying to), is no where near as good as using a T/S lens.
For starters, the geometry that a T/S lens offers is better than any other lens I've ever tried. (I use a Canon 24mm Mk2 T/S for my architectural images).
But where people attempt to straighten things in post, they forget that this process crops out big chunks of the image - and you only really get to see how much or what you're cropping, after you've shot it. With a T/S lens, you can frame intelligently, seeing exactly what you're getting, as you shoot.
And a workflow that includes a T/S is much faster. Assuming the floors in a property are pretty much level, you can almost set a height on a solid tripod (I use a Manfrotto 058B tripod with a geared head), and just move from room to room - only changing the height for the kitchen which tends to need a slightly higher viewpoint. Framing is a quick tweak to the shift position on the lens. This is faster than post production fixes - even with PS's easy auto adjustments.
I've shot without a T/S lens in my early days, but after I got my 24mm T/S, I could never go back. The ease of working and the sheer quality sets a tilt shift lens far apart.
Of course if you're very infrequently needing such a lens, then I can see why most wouldn't buy one. But it always amazes me when I hear of property photographers (real estate or architecture) not spending on a T/S lens.
If you're in doubt, rent one for a job - but be prepared to buy one straight after, because you'll not want to go back. :)
Same reasons, rented and tried them and since then I use regular lensed for architectural shoots. Bought though a 90mm TSE for product photography.
you don't "need" anything in photography. the same arguments he's making applies to a lot of other parts of photography. why do you need a telephoto lens when you can just crop in? whether you "need" it or not, it comes in handy when you have it. as with other things in photography, if you don't have it, you can make it work without it.
Shift yes, tilt, no. Straightening and cropping yield far inferior results than using a shift.