I always see dramatic architectural examples that obscure the more subtle side of these lenses. Here is an example of the simple differences it can make in an albeit boring composition.

- If you look closely at the tree and the house beyond it, you can see them leaning back slightly in image Two. They are straight up and showing a more natural perspective in image One (the tilt/shift lens).

- There is more foreground in image One, as the tilt/shift lens can be mounted lower to the ground, shifted up, and still have the top of the tree in the image.

- In photo One (the T/S example) the entire field of the image, from the blades of new grass poking through last years matted grass (it's March here in Wisconsin), to the top branches on the tree are in focus. In image Two the grass in the foreground is not sharp even though both lenses are 24mm wide angles at f8, and those blades of grass are three feet farther from the camera than those in the shifted image. (This is actual, increased, effective depth of field, that cannot be added later with a computer.)

The camera is a 20D, image One shot with 24mm TSE/3.5L, and image Two shot with 17-40/4.0L @24mm. Both lenses at f/8.0