I was wondering if anyone here owns and uses a tilt shift lens for their stock photography.

I was wondering what lens might be good to add to my meagre lens collection, and it strikes me that the added DOF from the tilt function might be quite useful in stock photography. Are they worth the cost?

I have my eyes peeled for a Nikon 85mm PC on ebay.  They crop up very occasionally.  Expensive but nice.

In some ways, doesn't ever-increasing resolution ( >10mp ) and Photoshop make these lenses less relevant for most situations that used to call for a tilt/shift lense?

(I know this goes against the "get it right in the camera, not in software" approach, which clearly has its merits, but this is not right vs. wrong, it's preference.)

Scientifically, a tilt-shift lense is doing in glass (distorting angles) what Photoshop would do in software (distort pixels). If there are enough of them to begin with, there's greater control in software.

DigitumDei, is your application architecture, or other? Have you tried changing perspective (eg. in software) on non-architectural / non-vanishing-point images? I'm curious.

Yes and no. Manipulation of focal plane is simply not possible in Photoshop, unless you have an unlimited DOF to play with, and most of the time you don't.

For architecture, it's a matter of discussion, but in my opinion, the difference in resolution after a perspective correction (usually less resolution in the upper part of the photo) will always show in formats from A4 and up, even with 10MP or more.

Another thing I've noticed, is that circular, and in particular cylindrical shapes in perspective, tend to get "out of shape" after a perspective correction in Photoshop. Trying to correct them (a correction of the correction so to say) separately can really improve your hate for computers 

Conversation between client and photographer (this is from a real case, photos of a 50 meter tall processing plant):

Client: That storage tank on the sixth floor looks strange. I don't think we manufacture anything that looks like that.

Photographer (jokingly): I don't know, I sure didn't place it there.

Client: Oh, wait. It's tank number x3br5 (or something like that). But the shape is strange. It's much taller, and isn't it supposed to be circular?

Photographer (looking at photo before and after perspective correction): I see what you mean, I'll have another go at it.

Photographer (Two hours later, his eyes threatening to fall out of his skull): Now, what do you think?

Client: It looks different at least. The height is right now, but the shape still looks strange. I think we have to get up there and have another go. Are you available tomorrow?

The photo was shot at a location 250km away, from the top of an old oil storage tank, 40 degrees Celsius in the shadow (no shadow on top of the rusty old tank though, and no lift)

Sometimes, getting it right in the camera is a good idea.

We have both a 90mm and 24mm Canon TS-E. Love shooting with them, mostly for the effect of a really shallow and selective depth-of-field by angling the lens plane away from the subject plane. However, almost all our microstock distributors reject the images because there's not enough in focus for them. The macros, on the other hand, love this style of image!