Tilt-shift lenses were once must-have equipment for certain genres of photography, particularly architecture, as they allowed photographers a high level of control in order to correct geometric issues and produce the highest quality images. Nonetheless, cameras have come a long way in recent years, and modern editing software can produce small miracles. So, do you still need a tilt-shift lens? This interesting video essay discusses the issue.
Coming to you from Sean Cross, this awesome video discusses whether photographers really need a tilt-shift lens. Without a doubt, tilt-shift lenses are highly useful options. They can have a bit of a steep learning curve, but once you master them, they can help you ensure you get top levels of image quality and save you a lot of time and effort in post. They can also allow you to explore some pretty unique creative effects and are often some of the sharpest optics out there. On the other hand, tilt-shift lenses are very specialized and often quite expensive. That means that if you only rarely need one, it might be worth considering if you would be better off just using post-processing for the times you do. Check out the video above for the rull rundown from Cross.
9 Comments
I recently read that if you're not sure if you need a 120-300mm f/2.8 lens, you don't. The same applies here. But it would be interesting to find out how many photographers base their buying decisions on need vs want.
To do architectural photography at a certain level, I believe shift lenses are a must. They will allow you to compose precisely in camera without the hit and miss framing that you get when you do it in post. I only "do it in post " when I cannot use one of my shift lenses.
I quote from James Ewing from his textbook Follow the Sun. A book aimed at professionals and students and considered a standard text.
"You might ask yourself "Do I really need an expensive tilt shift lens" Can't I just correct the perspective later in Photoshop?" The answer is yes you could correct it later, but the tilt shift lens allows you to see and feel the perspective of the images you are shooting. The final crop and ultimately the entire composition will be totally different in a shot that is corrected in post. If you cannot see the image while you are shooting you cannot control the composition and therefore you cannot effectively interpret the building. Correcting the perspective during post production causes a significant loss of sharpness and detail. The Tilt shift lens gives you accurate, sharp controlled images."
I think this says it all.
The old Nikon 28 mm and 35mm shift lenses are a cheap way to get started. I picked up my Nikon 24 TS and 45mm TS for less than €1000
Yes on shift only in architecture. It's a shame Nikon only makes a 24 on the wide end, though! You'll need the Laowa 15 if you're a Z shooter.
I do product work and architecture. The simple argument to the argument, is that there is simply nothing to replace the benefits of a tilt-shift.
For architecture it is a no-brainer. Not only can you obtain perfect verticals (throughout the image and not just the sides), and the sharpness / optical quality throughout - but a tilt-shift means you can shoot from almost any angle without needing to fix in post.
And fixing in post offers a few problems... You can't frame exactly what you want because some of it is going to be cropped - which means you need to shoot wider than you need. And it is a pain to have to correct later. (Which is not as good as a T-S lens... I've tried.)
I used to struggle without for my interiors work, but it all became so much easier when I invested in a 24mm T-S. And the images are simply better.
People say a T-S lens is only for architecture rather than real estate, but I would argue that people working in either field will benefit. It's actually faster on site and certainly faster in post. (Often photographers just keep their cameras level without a T-S and then all we see are ceilings and no room).
For product work, something like a 135mm tilt-shift is perfect for photographing smaller items like watches. In many cases it means we can avoid focus stacking, and for images that often require complex compositing, that is a huge benefit.
As to a "steep learning curve" this is just nonsense. For architecture it is as simple as getting the camera level and shifting up / down to find the frame, (instead of tilting the camera). It doesn't get much easier than that.
And to achieve a better plane of focus for product work, it will take 5 mins to work out which way to tilt the lens. And that's it - you've learned how to work a T-S lens... in 5 mins or less.
It's funny - photographers will drop money for a few extra pixels or the latest camera thingy - but when they're working in a field which screams for a specialist lens, the cry is often that they're expensive or complicated.
Compared to the latest batch of RF lenses, a T-S is not expensive. And if you're carving out a career in either product or architecture, then it's just part of the investment. And given that these things can last a whole career - that's pretty good value.
I've made good use of a tilt-shift macro lens (Nikkor 85mm) for shooting moving ants, etc, where focus-stacking isn't feasable.
Canon RF 10-20mm F4L IS STM rectilinear lens.
I'm sorry, I still don't know the answer to the question. Is it that what you can do with software makes the lens unnecessary? That's not clear in the video.
There was a setup, there was an explanation as to how the lens works, and there was something about focus stacking. There wasn't any clear comparison between images made in camera and images made on a screen. Yes, I've had one for a few decades and I know how to use it. But I'm not sure why I wouldn't want it.
I love the pacing, I love the cuts, I love the different setups in each shot. But I don't really know the answer to the question.
In your situation, I wouldn't give it up! I love them and never consider the alternative.
If you shoot with a wide, say 14mm, lens (in an architectural setting), the verticals are only straight if the camera is perfectly level. As soon as you tilt down or up, the verticals converge. You can correct this in LR or PS, but you end up chopping the corners off. If you do any amound of architectural shooting, a shift is the way to go. Very addictive and satisfying to use.