Jump to content
den_sh

Kipon Tilt & Shift adapter for $289

Recommended Posts

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Turn-360-Kipon-Tilt-Shift-Adapter-for-Nikon-F-lens-to-Fujifilm-Fuji-X-PRO1-/150971203825?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item232695c0f1

Have anyone tried one of those? It looks really interesting. This plus a manual focus Nikon lens will give you a proper tilt shift lens. No need to wait for rumored T/S lens from Fuji. (Which might not even exist.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got my Kipon Tilt&Shift adapter yesterday. Unfortunately I have only 50/1.8 and 90/2.8 Macro available for one day. Will by a 20/2.8 as soon as I find one for a reasonable price. But the adapter looks very solid and I will take some test shots within the next days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, please write more about this setup. I've been thinking about this adapter for quite some time and lack of any reviews put me off a bit. Maybe it's the easiest way to have affordable T/S on Fuji X cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a complete set of Kipon tilt and/or shift adapters for Nikon F lenses:

original.jpg

The combined T&S adapter - also the most expensive - is the most versatile, and most precise to operate expecially for the tilt function.

An example of using tilt, with a Nikon 50mm f/2.8 lens shot at f/5.6:

original.jpg

No tilt applied:

original.jpg

With 5.5degrees downward tilt:

original.jpg

An example of using shift for panoramas (combining 3 images with 0mm, 7mm left and 7mm right shift respectively), with a Tokina RMC 17mm f/3.5 lens shot at f/11:

original.jpg

original.jpg

(full-size version here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone so foolish as to think he can effectively duplicate the performance of a true tilt/shift lens without paying for one is doomed to failure.

Lenses for general photography do not have the necessary excess of coverage required.

Hence the expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenses for full frame 35mm have more coverage than Fuji's APS-C sensor needs. So there's excess coverage.

I've been using the Kipon adaptor with Shift only (no tilt) for Nikon to Fuji X mount (NIK-FX) for about half a year for shooting architecture. Lens mounted is the same Tokina 17mm RMC f3.5 (an old school, full frame, 35mm lens) as shown by a previous post. There is 10mm of shift, of which I normally use 5 to 7mm for my work. That full frame lens I use provides plenty of coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone so foolish as to think he can effectively duplicate the performance of a true tilt/shift lens without paying for one is doomed to failure.

Lenses for general photography do not have the necessary excess of coverage required.

Hence the expense.

Exactly correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenses for full frame 35mm have more coverage than Fuji's APS-C sensor needs. So there's excess coverage.

I've been using the Kipon adaptor with Shift only (no tilt) for Nikon to Fuji X mount (NIK-FX) for about half a year for shooting architecture. Lens mounted is the same Tokina 17mm RMC f3.5 (an old school, full frame, 35mm lens) as shown by a previous post. There is 10mm of shift, of which I normally use 5 to 7mm for my work. That full frame lens I use provides plenty of coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circle of coverage (image projection on film or sensor plane) is actually smaller for wide angles than it is for normal to telephoto. A large COC is often associated with a wider Angle of View, but in general, it's the opposite.

Here's a list of 4x5 lenses from wide to telephoto. Take a peek at the 6th from the left. It lists the COC of each lens. In general, the wider lenses have less COC than normal to telephoto. There are exceptions here or there (for example, a 120mm Nikkor AM has a paltry 120 COC whilst another 120mm Nikkor has a massive 312), but generally, there is more movement available, the longer the lens.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html

This list refers to large format lenses, but the principle is the same for any series of lenses designed for a specific format.

In addition to having a larger COC the longer the focal length becomes, one can find larger COC of the same focal length lens but that's designed for a larger film/sensor format.

If one is retrofitting a lens on an adapter with the intention of using it for movements, it's a safe bet to choose a lens from a larger format. As they were designed for a larger sensor/film area, it goes without saying that those lenses would have more COC than required for the smaller format.

I didn't bother obtaining the COC spec for the 17mm Tokina RMC lens designed for FF 35mm, that I use with my Kipon adapter on the Fuji. I knew it would have excess of coverage for the APS-c sensor.

Comparatively, I don't have the COC specs for it, but it's a good bet that my Fuji XF 18mm likely has less COC than that Tokina even though it's marginally longer in focal length. And why should it? It wasn't meant for movements and it was designed for APS-C and not a larger format.

The 17mm Tokina that I'm currently using equals to about a 25.5mm focal length in 35mm terms. It's a decent focal length for capturing small buildings' exteriors and the shift allows me to eliminate convergence without having to do post work.

With all of that said: I use a 10-24mm when I need an ultra wide for interiors. It's relatively easy to correct convergence in Capture One, on the rare occasions where I can't have the sensor plane parallel to verticals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circle of coverage (image protection on film or sensor plane) is actually smaller for wide angles than it is for normal to telephoto. A large COC is often associated with a wide Angle of View, but in general, it's the opposite.

Here's a list of 4x5 lenses from wide to telephoto. Take a peek at the 6th from the left. It lists the COC of each lens. In general, the wider lenses have less COC than normal to telephoto. There are exceptions here or there (for example, a 120mm Nikkor AM has a paltry 120 COC whilst another 120mm Nikkor has a massive 312), but generally, there is more movement available, the longer the lens.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html

This list refers to large format lenses, but the principle is the same for any series of lenses designed for a specific format.

If one is retrofitting a lens on an adapter with the intention of using it for movements, it's a safe bet to choose a lens from a larger format. As they were designed for a larger sensor/film area, it goes without saying that those lenses would have more COC than required for the smaller format.

I didn't bother obtaining the COC spec for the 17mm Tokina RMC lens designed for FF 35mm, that I use with my Kipon adapter on the Fuji. I knew it would have excess of coverage for the APS-c sensor.

Comparatively, I don't have the COC specs for it, but it's a good bet that my Fuji XC 18mm likely has less COC than that Tokina even though it's marginally longer in focal length. And why should it? It wasn't meant for movements and it was designed for APS-C and not a larger format.

The 17mm Tokina that I'm currently using equals to about a 25.5mm focal length in 35mm terms. It's a decent focal length for capturing small buildings' exteriors and the shift allows me to eliminate convergence without having to do post work.

With all of that said: I use a 10-24mm when I need an ultra wide for interiors. It's relatively easy to correct convergence in Capture One, on the rare occasions where I can't have the sensor plane parallel to verticals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

point taken;I've always believed that tilts and shifts are best done with cameras

with native tilt/shift capability, but most of the younger folks here probably

know nothing of that.

In my archival history of cameras I should never have sold or traded is a Linhof

Master Technika I bought new in the early '70's for $1500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You owned a Master Technika??!!! That's fantastic. I always coveted one of those. Linhof make stunningly luxurious cameras.

I started my career in the '80's. I ended up using Sinar P2 view cameras at work ( they belonged to the studios I worked for - I couldn't afford them on a photo assistant/ junior photographer's salary). First with 4x5 sheet film for architecture work, then in the '90s, using the Sinar in conjunction with an early Leaf digital back (triple pass). Like the Technika, the Sinar has fantastic tilt/shift movements. I agree with you that nothing matches those types of cameras when it comes to movements.

It was actually the existence of the Kipon shift adapter that made me switch from Canon FF. I had been eyeing the X-Pro1 for some time, due to its rangefinder like form, which I always prefer for a handheld camera. I couldn't justify it as I still used a Canon TS for my work.

Once I found out about the Kipon, and that it was available to adapt lenses from the 35mm FF format (and therefore had the larger COC), I switched from Canon to all Fuji. It's been over half a year since that decision, and I haven't regretted the decision. And when I need the shift capability, I have the handy Kipon adapter and used Tokina lens, both purchased at a very modest price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have enjoyed the forum and hopefully expect to continue. I am asking for links to

forums with a more photographically comprehensive, less branded purpose.

Whether mistakenly or not, I think some of you guys out there can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone so foolish as to think he can effectively duplicate the performance of a true tilt/shift lens without paying for one is doomed to failure.

Lenses for general photography do not have the necessary excess of coverage required.

Hence the expense.

If you put an FF lens to an APS-C body you DO have sufficient extra coverage for useful T/S operations. And this is NOT only true for wide-angles but for every lens designed to cover FF.

Circle of coverage (image protection on film or sensor plane) is actually smaller for wide angles than it is for normal to telephoto. A large COC is often associated with a wide Angle of View, but in general, it's the opposite.

Here's a list of 4x5 lenses from wide to telephoto.

It doesn´t make any sense to compare LF lens characteristics on one hand with MF, FF or APS-C, MFT on the other! Since a 150 Symmar covers the SAME angle as a 360 Symmar resulting in a much wider coverage (nevertheless might be called "wide angle" by some in special LF terminology) - since it is the SAME lens design, just in bigger scale. But a 135 FF lens covers a WIDER angle than a 300 FF lens (being a different lens design), resulting in the SAME coverage.

You only could compare LF lens TYPES: Super Angulon vs. Symmar vs. Tele-Arton/Xenar, etc..

So T/S of FF lenses on APS-C will work in general! The only caveat here is possible vignetting/reflections from the mechanics of the adapter or the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've missed the point of the statement. The point of posting the list the COC of the 4x5 lenses from wide to tele was simply to illustrate that, for the most part, COC is smaller for wide and larger for tele - within the SAME format (i.e. lenses for 4x5). That was from the discussion farrell and I were having.

The same pattern can be applied to ANY format line of lenses. There will be a similar progression of less to more coverage if one were to list wide to tele within a manufacturer's line of lenses for one format. This is regardless of format size.

The only consistent anomaly would be purpose-built TS lenses or extra coverage large format lenses. Beside additional cost of the TS mechanisms in those lenses, the other added cost to TS-specific lenses is the design and expense of the optical glass to allow dramatically more COC than a comparable non-TS lens of the same focal length, within the same line-up, for the same format.

I've already pointed out that lens COC one or more format size up will have sufficient coverage for adapted TS use. This is why my 17mm FF lens on a Kipon shift adapter gives me coverage, even fully shifted, on my APS-C Fuji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much confusion going on here!

In purpose of avoiding (further) misunderstandings let me try to define/exclude some terms first:

"Wide angle":

• WA1 (common use): A wider angle means a wider representation ("more on the picture") of the photographed object within the borders of the same film/sensor frame size.

• WA2 (only Large Format speech): A wider angle here may also mean that there is more shift-movement possible compared to not so "wide" lenses.

Examples for WA2: A 90mm Super Angulon (projecting about 105°) is a moderate wide angle on 4x5, but paradoxically becomes an even more "wide angle" on 6x9cm, even though the angle of capture on 6x9cm narrows down. It´s only called wider here because the smaller film-format leads to more possible shift-movement.

According to that a 120mm or 210mm Super Angulon (both also projecting about 105°, regardless of focal length) may (in LF terms) be called "wider" than a 90mm Super Angulon - used with the same film format(!).

I assume, and thus let me require, that we are talking about "wide angle" solely in the sense of WA1!

"NST" (Non Shift Tilt):

This is my own term - I hope you don´t mind!

A NST shall be called any common MF, FF, APS-C, MFT, etc., lens that does NOT ZOOM and does NOT have built in shift/tilt functionality - AND the camera system it belongs to is not by ITSELF capable of T/S).

A Canon TS-E 24mm for example shall NOT be called a NST, but any "regular" 24mm SHALL! (And we won´t talk about special stuff like Fuji GX680 or Rollei SL66 here...)

"ZNST": Same as NST, but a zoom-construction

"LF" (Large Format):

Camera/lens systems capable of Tilt and/or Shift from ground up. Actual frame sizes do not matter.

--------------------------------

I´d like to locate numerous and complicated misconceptions now by reproducing crucial parts of the conversation and commenting on them:

farrell :

"Lenses for general photography do not have the necessary excess of coverage required."

WRONG/OFF TOPIC - in respect that farrell didn´t account for the fact that the larger COC of FF-lenses used on APS-C (which this thread IS ALL ABOUT!) is already there!

Cardiobikeracer: (adressing farrell)

"Lenses for full frame 35mm have more coverage than Fuji's APS-C sensor needs. So there's excess coverage.

I've been using the Kipon adaptor with Shift only (no tilt) for Nikon to Fuji X mount (NIK-FX) for about half a year for shooting architecture. Lens mounted is the same Tokina 17mm RMC f3.5 (an old school, full frame, 35mm lens) as shown by a previous post. There is 10mm of shift, of which I normally use 5 to 7mm for my work. That full frame lens I use provides plenty of coverage."

TOTALLY RIGHT!

farrell: (adressing Cardio)

"Very wides as you have described should."

WRONG - since this is supposed to imply that telephotos won´t!

Cardiobikeracer: (adressing farrell)

"Circle of coverage (image projection on film or sensor plane) is actually smaller for wide angles than it is for normal to telephoto."

WRONG/(maybe only) AMBIGUOUS: Let me discern: A projection of the same tree from the same distance is indeed smaller for a wide angle (WA1). But this allows for no conclusions on the COC of this lens!

"A large COC is often associated with a wider Angle of View,"

BY WHOM?? See my two definitions of "wide angle"!

"but in general, it's the opposite."

WRONG/PARTLY TRUE BUT MEANINGLESS : Talking about NSTs it´s neither larger nor the opposite! It´s merely always the same (within the same system-format)! Concerning LF (which is your argument to come) there is no "general". It rather is quite mixed here!

The Super Angulon 210 has an COC of 500mm, while the Nikkor T 500mm has only 210mm! It all depends on the purpose of the lens TYPE! And there are (roughly) only three: WIDE (WA1), NORMAL, TELE. A Super Angulon 210mm is a WIDE (WA1), whereas a Xenotar 80mm is a NORMAL!

"Here's a list of 4x5 lenses from wide to telephoto. Take a peek at the 6th from the left. It lists the COC of each lens. In general, the wider lenses have less COC than normal to telephoto."

WRONG/PARTLY TRUE BUT MEANINGLESS - but this observation (be it (partly) correct or not) is meaningless regarding the topic! Since you can´t compare LF lens design purposes with NST lens design purposes!

" There are exceptions here or there (for example, a 120mm Nikkor AM has a paltry 120 COC whilst another 120mm Nikkor has a massive 312), but generally, there is more movement available, the longer the lens."

SEE MY COMMENT ABOVE

"This list refers to large format lenses, but the principle is the same for any series of lenses designed for a specific format."

WRONG- SEE MY COMMENTS ABOVE! Since for LF lenses there IS NO specific format, but for NST there always is one! You may want to use a 360mm Symmar on 4x5 (instead of 11x17), be it for the tele effect only, be it because you need the extra movements too. You may also use a 90mm Super Angulon on 5x7, because you need really wide and don´t need any movements at all!

As we talk about NST lenses here, with them there is a direct relation of focal length and "how much angle" fits into the constantly given (same) frame. LF aspects just don´t shed a light on the topic, as they won´t relativize this direct NST relation, since they don´t have such.

"In addition to having a larger COC the longer the focal length becomes,"

WRONG - ONLY (partly) TRUE for LF concepts which don´t matter here

"one can find larger COC of the same focal length lens but that's designed for a larger film/sensor format."

RIGHT!

"If one is retrofitting a lens on an adapter with the intention of using it for movements, it's a safe bet to choose a lens from a larger format. As they were designed for a larger sensor/film area, it goes without saying that those lenses would have more COC than required for the smaller format."

RIGHT! Of course...

"Comparatively, I don't have the COC specs for it, but it's a good bet that my Fuji XF 18mm likely has less COC than that Tokina even though it's marginally longer in focal length. And why should it? It wasn't meant for movements and it was designed for APS-C and not a larger format."

VERY RIGHT! But why then should you refer on a LF-COC list? This is completely unnecessary!

farrell: (adressing Cardio)

point taken;I've always believed that tilts and shifts are best done with cameras

with native tilt/shift capability, but most of the younger folks here probably

know nothing of that.

WRONG! "Point taken"?? You must be kidding! You are concluding quite the opposite of what Cardiobikeracer has concluded here - without even realizing it!

BTW: I can show you work done with my Canon TS-E 17mm, my TS-E 24 and TS-E 90mm (on my 5D MkII or adapted on my Sony A7R) that IQ-wise will blow your socks off! (Of course the amounts of T/S are a bit limited but I seldom needed more of it!)

Before that I used some NST Hasselblad lenses and a NST Pentax 645 35mm on decent T/S adapters - which worked fine too (limited angles here aside...)!

"In my archival history of cameras I should never have sold or traded is a Linhof

Master Technika I bought new in the early '70's for $1500."

I still own mine (sleeping in the closet). Wanna buy it?

Cardiobikeracer: (adressing me)

"You've missed the point of the statement. The point of posting the list the COC of the 4x5 lenses from wide to tele was simply to illustrate that, for the most part, COC is smaller for wide and larger for tele - within the SAME format (i.e. lenses for 4x5). That was from the discussion farrell and I were having."

WRONG/PARTLY RIGHT BUT MEANLINGLESS! Since there ARE no LF lenses dedicated to 4x5 (or whatever) format ONLY. LF lenses only suit best (are more versatile) for a specific format. And yes, there is a loose correlation of COC and Focal length for LF lenses. But this doesn`t apply for NSTs! In contrast ALL NST lenses (of whatever focal length) are designed for a specific format - resulting in the same specific COC.

"The same pattern can be applied to ANY format line of lenses. There will be a similar progression of less to more coverage if one were to list wide to tele within a manufacturer's line of lenses for one format. This is regardless of format size."

WRONG! Let me show you why:

For example, a normal NST 300mm has the same COC as a normal NST 50 or NST 18mm, which is determined solely by the diameter of the film/sensor frame.

Why would one want to make the COC of a NST 300mm larger than that? This would (without any benefit!) only result in larger lens-diameters! Leading to more size, more weight, more cost. To avoid this, every competitive manufacturer tends to make the COC of any NST lenses as small as possible! The result is that they (within the same system) all DO ideally have the same minimally required COC (more or less...).

With ZNST lenses (due to construction limitations) things MIGHT look a bit different. But the (in zooms) sometimes resulting increase of COC along with increased focal length mostly is masked out by vignettes in order to avoid flares caused by stray light.

To make this complete: below is a link to another COC listing that perfectly proves my statements (cinema lenses)! Another hint is that I could NOT find a spec sheet of "ordinary" NST system lenses (Canon EF, Nikon, Olympus...) where COC is mentioned - because there is no need to tell, since they all fill the frame they are built for - so there is no use in knowing more...

Now, in my list of cinema-lenses take a look at Zeiss CZ.2/LWZ lenses, Zeiss CP.2/ZF.2, or Zeiss Variable Primes. There are a few discrepancies, but keep in mind, that not all cine-lenses are designed for exactly one format! The longer Zeiss Ultra Primes are designed to fill larger sensor-types also! The Canon Cine Zooms are ZNST (not NST!) with minor masking -which explains the larger COCs at the longer end - not the mere focal length is what contributes to that but the fact that they are zoom constructions!

https://matthewduclos.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/image-circle-database.pdf

"The only consistent anomaly would be purpose-built TS lenses or extra coverage large format lenses. Beside additional cost of the TS mechanisms in those lenses, the other added cost to TS-specific lenses is the design and expense of the optical glass to allow dramatically more COC than a comparable non-TS lens of the same focal length, within the same line-up, for the same format.

I've already pointed out that lens COC one or more format size up will have sufficient coverage for adapted TS use. This is why my 17mm FF lens on a Kipon shift adapter gives me coverage, even fully shifted, on my APS-C Fuji."

RIGHT!

If one of you (which of course I`d appreciate) should feel the need to provide an answer to my statements, please stick to my terminology in order to avoid further confusion (except of course you find my definitions to be misleading...)

...

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up. Your explanation makes it all - clear as mud. Anyone who wasn't confused before, will be by now.

We really needed another "expert" to explain the ins and outs of a ducks arsehole when none of this minutiae will actually lead to noticeably better pictures or better photographers or better cameras/lenses. There is so much c**p spouted here by apparently knowledgeable folks like yourself and several others (you know who you are). This c**p from all of you may be correct c**p but what does it all amount to in the end? Exposure better by a half-stop? Dynamic range improved by 10%? Sharper images by a small amount? Nothing I can't improve with pp and this from someone who's always said, get it right in camera first. If you were all really concerned about the very finest points of IQ you wouldn't be using these cameras - you be using MF at the very least.

As you guys cannot all be correct, one assumes that most of you are talking rubbish and taking pictures which only you individually can appreciate. Of course that is not so - so why spend so much time testing, measuring, reading, linking to other so called experts, expounding and pontificating when it isn't going to make any real difference to the end product.

Someone on this forum recently said they don't know of a picture ruined by a poor lens.

That pretty much says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recommended Discussions



×