is there any difference whether you use back or front shift? i shoot architecture
i am considering a 300mm or 360mm lens. I tend to use alot of rise with the 45. all the lenses i use have large image circles but i dont fancy carrying a massive lens. how much rise can you get out of a compact 300 or 360? i shoot architecture and use alot of rise. I would love to hear from people with actual experience using the these lenses on buildings
The choice between front and back shift/rise makes more of a difference for tabletop work where the subject distance is relatively near than for architecturals where the subject distance is relatively far.
You can check manufacturer's specs and tables at lfphoto.info for image circles of various lenses.
Using a 360mm lens with a lot of front rise implies shooting a tall structure from ground level and some distance away with an unobstructed view. I don't think I've encountered that situation too often. Or were you thinking of using it for shooting details?
It makes essentially no difference whether you shift the front or you shift the back in the opposite direction. In some cases you may want to do both in order to maximize the total shift. One way to understand this is to try to imagine the two standards by themselves without a bellows or any supports. The only thing that matters is the relative position of the lens with respect to the location of the film frame. If you end up with the same relative relation, it doesn't matter how you got there. Of course, the actual position of the lens can sometimes make a difference because it determines the center of perspective. For architectural purposes, it is seldom very critical to have the lens in a specific position, but as David points out, it might for closeups.
Longer lenses of non telephoto design tend to have quite a lot of rise. My Fuji compact 300 mm lens allows for as much rise as I can get out of my camera.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks