Jinfinance on ebay is making a tilt adapter and should be available in two weeks.
This sort of thing used to be common, with 4x5 (inch) lenses being usable on the smaller 2x3 inch. However many inexperienced 4x5 photographers would try to pick up some "bargain" (say) 90mm lenses designed for 2x3 and find that while it might just cover the film there was often vignetting and certainly no room for any tilts or shifts.
I actually looked for an FD 35mm TS today--but then the Ebay auction got to the point where I can likely buy an adaptor--and even add another lens if I want, so I backed off. I wouldn't mind having the shift also but more interested in the tilt right now.
I'm excited for anything for FD as I have the FLs I like to use with one without buying more lenses--and it would be wonderful to have 2 choices.
I disagree with this. Reason: from the shots folks have posted here in this forum (Rafael, for example), even the 7-14 zoom has more coverage than the sensor but is manipulated by the camera to give the final image.
To answer Carl's question: the answer to both the candidates you mentioned is- yes.
well, unless there is a micro 4/3 lens designed for doing this how would you get any tilt happening? The native lenses mount tightly to the camera, so you would need to somehow allow for the movement.To answer Carl's question: the answer to both the candidates you mentioned is- yes.
Would you care to explain how this would be done without thus making the lens quite a macro limited to never being able to focus even near infinity? Because I have never seen any adaptor which would allow any systems lenses to be mounted and converted to tilt (or shift).
I was thinking further about my answer last night and thought that if proper center axis rear tilt could be done then coverage would of course not be as significant a problem ... certainly small tilts would be possible.
Very Goodmorning/midday to you as well.
I believe the title of this thread and the thread is supposed to be about tilt (and a tilt adapter to be specific).
I would let you figure it out how that can be accomplished.
Revisiting this thread. I'm hoping that there are some more samples from the Italian adaptor, perhaps info on the RJ FD adaptor (Pellicle??) or anything else of interest.
I'm getting ready to sell off a number of EF lenses, accessories and some bodies and will have some discretionary money to spend--and I'd love to buy a tilt adaptor. I recently considered the FD 35mm TS but the auction at Ebay got crazy and I backed off early--final was a good bit more than I can buy one at KEH most of the time. Besides that---I would prefer to use my 24 or 28.
I will try to shoot more soon. I had it with me on my last outing, but as I stated in my other thread, my son and I were on a mission to find tadpoles, so I only took one with the adapter.
These two shots are first without and second with tilt. The idea I was playing with was to reduce the focus to the shroom and along its top. Both of these are with my 20mm nikkor and an extension ring for closeup. The mushroom is about the size of a nickel.
Thanks Doug. I liked your fence/shadow on the trail photo in the other thread and am sure your son had a great time looking for tadpoles.
Has there been any update to the Jinfinance adapter? Still not listed in his items for sale.
I only used it on 35mm film not on digital because I still don't have a full frame digital. Sure, used at f3.5 and shifted into the red markers it was soft on the edges, but used straight on I found it better than my EF24 f2.8 with both at 5.6
Also, contrast and other rendering characteristics are at least as significant as its maximum lp/mm rating. It was without doubt my favourite lens (my TS-E 90 being my 2nd favorite in a tie with my 50 f1.8)
sorry, but its like hearing my best friend called names
Well, I hate to be the one to verify this, but your 'best friend' is a dud. It was barely acceptable on film, but it really doesn't cut it on FF digital. This is from trying about 4 samples, and is substantiated by a number of other photographers I know.
I've used most of the shift and t/s lenses available over the years on 35mm and MF. I still have 6 of them. While the 24TSE isn't the worst, it's not that far from the bottom. Just to show that Canon used to be able to make decent lenses a while ago, the old FD 35TS was outstanding; it was one of the very best 35 shift lenses.
The reason I got the 24TSE was of course because it was a 24. Otherwise I would have just kept on using the 28 Nikkor or 28 Super Angulon, both of which are a lot better (but don't tilt).
Canon hasn't had much that was good under 35mm in the EOS line until the new 17 and 24TSE II came out. It has really redeemed their standing as a wide angle lens design company. Their long lenses have generally been good to outstanding, and even their standard lens, the 50/1.8 is fine, if not superb.
I have a lot of other lenses, and I've used even more. Canon's 24/1.4 v1 and v2 are poor, their 16-35's are awful and barely acceptable and the 17-40 is only acceptable. The 20/2.8 is downright useless, and the 28/1.8 isn't much better. I haven't used the 24/2.8 but as for the rest under 35, it doesn't look too rosy. I got rid of the 16-35 a long time ago, and now only use the new 24 and 17 and sometimes the 24/1.4 when light gathering is more important than technical quality. The 35/1.4 gets used a lot more.
Nikon has had some ups and downs, but they've certainly done better in the last while. I'm looking forward to their fast 24 and will try it, but since I'm not really into Nikon anymore won't buy it. Panasonic has made a wonderful 7-14 that I use a lot, and of course Leica has made some fabulous wides in the M line, including the 21 Summilux which is one of my most used lenses now. Yes, it's expensive, but at least you get outstanding quality.
I'm delighted Canon replaced the 24TSE, and now they have to do the same with some of their other wides.
I don't demand superb resolution, contrast, aberration control and lack of distortion in every lens and certainly not every shot, but T/S lenses in particular due to their intended use should be first rate in these departments.
There were also a lot of pro photographers who used this lens for years. There weren't a lot of choices for T/S and I realize they wanted a II, but--they continued to use it and make money with it and were not what I'd call 'up in arms' about it. I rented one for several weeks but in the end bought the 45 TS which is a better fit for my shooting. I don't have any more personal experience with it than that and was less concerned with resolution, etc. at that time than just how to deal with a T/S after having read about its use for a good period of time. I've found that people have different opinions about lenses, camera bodies, needs, wants, etc. and final output. But--I just don't think many of those using that lens for a good long while thought it was as bad as you do.
I'm sure they're grateful for your endorsement ... their sales must have been hitting bottom until this ...While the 24TSE isn't the worst, it's not that far from the bottom. Just to show that Canon used to be able to make decent lenses a while ago, the old FD 35TS was outstanding; it was one of the very best 35 shift lenses.
Canon hasn't had much that was good under 35mm in the EOS line until the new 17 and 24TSE II came out. It has really redeemed their standing as a wide angle lens design company.
I mean its not like the TS-E was a hot seller or in demand by photographers who needed tilt and shift ... and of course you've already made it clear how much better those lenses which don't tilt and shift (and were 28mm instead of 24mm) were just superior.
no, you're quite right ... if it wasn't for their sales in the Rebel series I expect they would have been about to go underI have a lot of other lenses, and I've used even more. Canon's 24/1.4 v1 and v2 are poor, their 16-35's are awful and barely acceptable and the 17-40 is only acceptable. The 20/2.8 is downright useless, and the 28/1.8 isn't much better. I haven't used the 24/2.8 but as for the rest under 35, it doesn't look too rosy.
well, yes ... its only 2.2 times the cost, so its a steal. I have only read good to stratospheric comments about that lens.I'm delighted Canon replaced the 24TSE, and now they have to do the same with some of their other wides.
I guess that if a lens does OK on one shot, but is a bit tired and performs less well towards the end of the day its expectable ... everything gets tired.I don't demand superb resolution, contrast, aberration control and lack of distortion in every lens and certainly not every shot,
well said ... I'm so glad there are people like you to demand these things and keep the makers on their toes.but T/S lenses in particular due to their intended use should be first rate in these departments.
I wish you'd have a word with Fujinon while you're there, my 180mm lens is superb, but for some reason I just don't seem to get the same out of my 90mm ... perhaps I don't know why but even the Schneider Super Angulon 90mmf8 I used wasn't as good as the 105 ...
well anyway, thanks for clearing me up on the TS-E 24 being a dud ... if you have time, perhaps you could send this information to those poor devils who've been using the TS-E and didn't know it was a dud?
Looking about on the internet there seems to be a lot of us suffering from this delusion.
There is an interesting article by Harold Merklinger at Michael Reichmann's site on the Canon T/S lenses, but has a lot of useful general stuff in it, plus some new ideas.
Found this while eBay browsing:
Obviously with a seller feedback of 0 I won't be taking a chance, so some googling led to this:
Unfortunately the site doesn't seem to offer online shopping, so until we hear more, this is just a news flash.