Are Shift Lenses Still Useful?

Some time ago I was becoming bored with the mostly scenic photography I was doing, mostly during hikes in the Apennines. Slowly my photography shifted towards architectural subjects, and initially like most photographers, I corrected the geometry of the buildings in post.

I have always been fascinated by cameras with movements, which allow the manipulation of geometry. Indeed, I had an expensive to feed 5x4 camera back in the nineties. As my interest in Architectural photography deepened, I slowly put together a collection of shift lenses. Here are a few thoughts about perspective control lenses.

The first myth to get out of the way is that these lenses are hyper expensive. The still valid Nikon 28mm and 35mm PC lenses can be found second hand in good condition for about €300. My early shift lens photography was done with a Nikon D700 and a Nikon 28PC, which cost me less than the cost of a good lens bought new. I lost nothing when I sold the glorious D700.

I picked up my Nikon 24 TS and 45mm TS for less than €1000 and the excellent Laowa 15mm Zero D shift, cost me a little over €1200. Sure these more modern lenses are not cheap, but compared to the long lenses used by photographers photographing the natural world, shift lenses are about average or even cheaper than most specialised lenses.

Secondly, there seems to be a very common belief, that with the powerful photo editing tools we have today, the shift lens has become redundant. I believe this quote from James Ewing from his textbook Follow the Sun. A book aimed at professionals and students and considered a standard text destroys this myth.

"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.

I can add from experience that it is almost impossible to judge how much extra framing space needs to be left, to take into account the area lost when correcting in post

Traditionally due to the fact that the camera needs to be absolutely level when using a shift lens, a tripod needs to be used when using them. The mirrorless camera has liberated the shift lens from the tripod. With the viewfinder level it is now possible to hand hold the camera whilst using these lenses. IBIS is lets me close down the lens too. This is brilliant for those places where tripods are not allowed, or when you do not want to carry one about. I often use my 24PC alongside my 24-200 for general travel photography.

But after getting the technical arguments out the way, the thing I most enjoy about using these lenses, how it slows me down to really look at what I am looking at, and what I am trying to convey with the picture I am making. I now tend to spend more time photographing fewer venues, when I visit a place, which I believe makes my photography a little deeper.

[deleted]

Just buy a recent camera from Olympus/OM System.
The menu item is called Keystone Compensation, and works perfectly in Life View.
Has been introduced about ten (10) years ago.
Available out-of-the-box.
With any lens, be it MF or AF.
thedigitalstory.com/2014/11/how-to-use-keystone-compensation-omd-em1.html

With the shift lens I see the corrections already.

But you take a hit on image quality, when you stretch the top part of the picture. Keystone correction in post can produce very different results, compared to a shot taken with a shift lens, even if in theory there should be no difference.

I did some crude experiments, after one of those forum debates on DPR and you can almost reproduce equal images, with good well corrected lenses. Here is a link to a Blog post I made.

But with less well corrected lenses, the story changes.

But in practice I found that correcting in post will produce pictures with differences, due to the camera position needed, to get "everything in"

Yes, but that can lead you into needing a <10mm lens and such things that lack distortions are by no means common or cheap!

David

[deleted]

You can pick up a Nikon 28mm for €300, which is not expensive in photographic equipment terms. You can do first class work with this lens. It is optically good and was very expensive back in the day. When I see the birding fraternity spending €2000 - €7000 for long lenses, picking up a shift lens second hand is worthwhile and not expensive if you do a lot of this type of photography.

Let's take another look at what James Ewing from his textbook Follow the Sun said

"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.

It is the reason I use a shift lens for architecture. I compose the picture precisely in the viewfinder, with all the advantages that using the right lens for the subject entails.

Just curious Nigel - this particular shot was taken with a regular smartphone and no pp. Was performed afterwards.
Building is curved by design, so your shift lens would alter it or...!?

Never owned or used a tilt-shift lens, but have corrected images in post often. But it is obvious that stretching the top of a picture does something due the necessary horizontal re-sampling.

However, now that we are in the era of Topaz et al, it is likely that good old AI will greatly improve Keystone Correction and more, eventually rendering special lenses less necessary in that regard.

Well, it seems to be akin to the old argument prime versus zoom lens.
Early zooms had significantly less IQ, but today's highend zooms are often better than primes.

Ever heard of a shift zoom lens?
Shift prime lenses are available just for very few fixed focal lengths, thus severely limiting composition and perspective.
Oh, and don't forget when you crop an shift Lens image you're inevitably reducing its IQ as well.

I think this says it all.

In practice having a set of close spaced fixed focus lenses does allow me to compose precisely, as generally my shooting position can very, to take into account what I want in the frame. Or sometimes I know I will be making a slight crop, that with my high resolution sensor in my D850 or Z7 will have very little effect on image quality. But 99% of the time my final composition is there in the viewfinder.

With keystone correction, it is easy to halve the number of pixels along the top edge.

My 15mm, 24mm , 28mm ,35mm and 45mm shift lenses cover almost all my Architectural subjects.

No. a shift lens is just a lens with a wider image circle than a regular lens. With a shift lens you are basically cropping in camera.

A "looking up shot" like this does not benefit from using a shift lens.

I have used Topaz and I have mixed feelings about it and applying AI to photographs.

I made a set of pictures in a building in Parma. I had to shoot without a tripod, and the results were far from perfect. I tried Topaz, which gave a good illusion of improvement. I just went back on another day and shot using my monopod method which allows me to work at up to 30 seconds at base ISO, with the aperture I want. The resulting 3 frame HDR sets, brought ot what was really there in the small details, rather than what Topaz thought was there.

A GFX100 has more than twice the number of pixels compared to a Z7, so there's ample of them pixels to spare.
When I think my image has too few pixels I take a high-res shot or stitch multiple images into a panorama.

For me, shift lenses are just too clunky (and heavy).
I'd rather buy a 4x5" Field Camera. With front standard having a full range of independently controlled rise/fall, tilt and swing movements. T/S the camera standards, not the lens. 😁