Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon 24mm PC-E  (Read 14771 times)
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« on: May 12, 2008, 06:47:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Firstly, I should make the point that this lens is primarily usable with full frame (FX) and film cameras. Nikon's suggestion is that they are not suitable for use with DX format cameras. I tried it on a D300 and some of the control knobs will hit the projecting built-in flash housing.

I just thought I'd point out that with the D300 this lens is still quite useful, and in fact you can use the full amount of shift or tilt in any direction without any clearance issues. The only limitation is that when configured for horizontal shift you must have the shift knob rotated to the bottom instead of the top. A minor inconvenience perhaps, but certainly not something that should keep someone from buying the lens.

Other DX cameras will not fare so well, neither the D2x or D70 can use the full amount of vertical shift without hitting clearance issues. But it looks like Nikon tried to make sure the D300 was designed for compatibility with these new PC-E lenses.

I find  the 24 PC-E quite useful on the D300, it's a pretty useful FOV for me, especially since I'm often using it for flat stitching which effectively increases the FOV.

Parallax can definitely be an issue when stitching since at 24mm you're more likely to have something in the foreground. At the suggestion of another poster here I've taken to shifting the camera in the quick release clamp by the same amount as the lens but in the opposite direction. This has the virtual effect of keeping the lens stationary and shifting the camera. The shots stitch up quite nicely using PS CS3's PhotoMerge with the 'Reposition Images Only' option. (Pano software such as PTGui or AutoPano Pro do not have the option of doing a flat stitch so they're not recommended for stitching these shots).
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 06:48:00 PM by JeffKohn » Logged

lightstand
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2008, 07:41:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Just a quick question(s), neither article touches base with handling CA from a T/S lens, why? Is there a simple PS fix I've missed? If so how do you handle CA from a T/S lens? Thanks for any insights. jeff



P.S: The plugin LensFix doesn't work with either my old or my new video card.
Logged
Marlyn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 253


« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2008, 08:23:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Tilt Shift lens are an excellent addition to the camera bag, IMO.

I use a 24mm TS-E lens extensivley for Landscape work, and am currently contemplating either the 45mm or the 90mm (as I find the 24 often too wide).    Primary use is to do Stitching with a flat stitch,  as well as adjusting the 'view' (using falling front), and then doing a standard rotated Panorma.

Recently I borrowed a 1ds-III, and found the live view made TS work SO much, it was scary.

CA:
 I find any CA can be taken out in Camera Raw, before I stitch the shots.


Here is an image I shot recently, (of a fairly famous building!) using a 24mm TS-E, and 3 shots, Left/Center/Right, to obtain a rectilinear stitch.    The location dictated I had to be very close. (In fact I was standing as far back as I could, hard up against another building.   Due to the number of lines, crisscrossing all over the Pyramid, I think a rotating Pano-stitch would of had a VERY hard time producing this Image.


Canon 5D, 24mm TS-E,  f8.0, 15s, Tripod.
3 Shots, Left, center, right,  Processed in Camera Raw, stitched in PS CS-3, rectalinear.

Regards

Mark
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 08:24:11 PM by Marlyn » Logged
lightstand
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2008, 09:04:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
CA:
 I find any CA can be taken out in Camera Raw, before I stitch the shots.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How does ACR account for the image shifting within the lens circle?
thanks Jeff
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 09:06:08 PM by lightstand » Logged
Jay Kaplan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178


« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2008, 09:23:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I am mostly interested closeup photography, especially flowers. And while a macro lenses lets me get quite close, there are times when I wished that I could have more in focus.

Could the tilt/shift lenses be used with an extension tube to get the closeup detail of a macro and still "pull" everything else into focus? By that I mean the flower, not the background.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2008, 09:27:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just a quick question(s), neither article touches base with handling CA from a T/S lens, why? Is there a simple PS fix I've missed? If so how do you handle CA from a T/S lens? Thanks for any insights. jeff
P.S: The plugin LensFix doesn't work with either my old or my new video card.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I can tell fixing lateral CA is no different than with other lenses. I have to say so far I've found very little CA with the 24mm PC-E. It's only shown up in one image so far which had a very high-contrast edge at the corner of the frame, and wasn't much of an issue at all to fix using the standard CA correction in ACR.
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2008, 09:33:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I use  the Canon 24, 45, 90 and Olympus 35 routinely for architecture/landscape stitching. I prefer a simple three image stitch if possible, shift left, center stitch right, in horizontal if I want a panorama, vertical if I am trying to build pixel size. Sometimes I simply need a lens wider than the 24 for an architectural interior and will do a simple 2 image shft left shift right stitch.

One issue raised is CA. If you use allot of rise for example, you will get more CA at the top of the image than the bottom and correction will fix the top but screw up the bottom which needs less or no correction. My solution is to blend a corrected version and the before version, gradually blending in the top of the corrected version. Does that make sense? It works well.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Panorama
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2008, 09:23:31 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing I found interesting was that MR didn't mention the huge cost differential. The Canon 24mm TSE (a much older lens) can be purchased for $1100, while the Nikon version is $2,000, or almost 2x the cost.

To me, regardless of slight quality differences (if any are present which is unknown), the Canon lens provides a superior value and is accessible to more people. Combined with the other two TSEs (45 & 90), the bang for the buck vis-a-via Nikon is huge and something to be considered if architectural shooting is required.

I own all 3 Canon TSE's and think they're fantastic. The 90mm is razor sharp, the 45mm is also very sharp with a great and flexible normal view, and the 24mm at f/8 is also great, but admittedly not as sharp as the others.

For either the Nikon or Canon versions, when combined with a 1.4x TC these lenses become very flexible and useful tools.
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2008, 10:06:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just a quick question(s), neither article touches base with handling CA from a T/S lens, why? Is there a simple PS fix I've missed? If so how do you handle CA from a T/S lens? Thanks for any insights. jeff
P.S: The plugin LensFix doesn't work with either my old or my new video card.
Are you perhaps talking about color casts? There shouldn't be anything about a shift lens that necessarily increases CA. Shifting, however, can cause color casts if the shift causes the light to hit the sensor at a shallow angle. Ideally Nikon would have designed the lens so that the light leaves the rear element perpendicular to the sensor, which would prevent any color casts, but I have no information on whether this is actually what Nikon did. Good question tho.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2008, 10:29:20 AM »
ReplyReply

the 90TS is a wonderful macro lens when used with an appropriate combination of 1.4X (or even 2X), 500D, and extension tube(s)

there are situations where the extra depth of field from tilt is very useful, but this generally not going to help keep the background out of focus

if you really want depth of field in the subject with the background out of focus - and have a stationary subject - Helicon Focus will let you shoot multiple images of the subject at large aperture and put them together for perfect focus front to back of the subject and leave the background out of focus
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4874



« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2008, 10:47:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One thing I found interesting was that MR didn't mention the huge cost differential. The Canon 24mm TSE (a much older lens) can be purchased for $1100, while the Nikon version is $2,000, or almost 2x the cost.

Your point is well taken. The Canon 24 TSE is much better value, even if the Nikon lens is found to be superior. But, as you point out, the Canon is a much older lens and Canon has long amortized its development and tooling. The 24 PC-E is a brand new lens for Nikon, with all of the investment that this entails.

The point is moot though, since Nikon owners don't have the option of using the less expensive Canon lens.

Michael
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2008, 12:20:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One thing I found interesting was that MR didn't mention the huge cost differential. The Canon 24mm TSE (a much older lens) can be purchased for $1100, while the Nikon version is $2,000, or almost 2x the cost.
You rounded the numbers in favor of the Canon, it's not almost 2x the cost. B&H has the Nikkor at $1850 and the Canon at $1150, which means a 60% premium for the newer lens.

Quote
To me, regardless of slight quality differences (if any are present which is unknown), the Canon lens provides a superior value and is accessible to more people. Combined with the other two TSEs (45 & 90), the bang for the buck vis-a-via Nikon is huge and something to be considered if architectural shooting is required.
I won't be at all surprised if comparison tests show that the quality difference is more than slight. I've seen a fair number of complaints from Canon users about the performance of the 24 TS-E relative to the two other TS-E lenses.
Logged

01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2008, 01:23:40 PM »
ReplyReply

[deleted]

And after some more thinking, I found out I was entirely wrong. Nevermind.

-- Olaf
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 09:18:24 AM by 01af » Logged
Panorama
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2008, 05:06:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You rounded the numbers in favor of the Canon, it's not almost 2x the cost. B&H has the Nikkor at $1850 and the Canon at $1150, which means a 60% premium for the newer lens.

Actually, I didn't and certainly not intentionally as you're implying. I used the numbers I saw for this lens last month the last time I looked and I think it was $1070, so if anything I intentionally rounded Canon's up. I also simply took the Nikon price directly from MR's article, with no changes. From what I wrote, it was a very fair, very accurate assessment of the cost differential. If you want to quibble over the original $70 difference ($1070) in my illustration it's meaningless. The point was the differential, and the accessibility of these lenses to the masses, not the few of us that can pick and choose.


Quote
I won't be at all surprised if comparison tests show that the quality difference is more than slight. I've seen a fair number of complaints from Canon users about the performance of the 24 TS-E relative to the two other TS-E lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do you own a Canon 24mm or are you just repeating something you read somewhere?

I own it, and have used one without issue for years. That does not mean that a new, currently manufactured and engineered lens will not surpass it, but again, going only by MR's discussion, there was no unequivocal statement of superiority; that still remains to be seen....
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2008, 06:17:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, I didn't and certainly not intentionally as you're implying. I used the numbers I saw for this lens last month the last time I looked and I think it was $1070, so if anything I intentionally rounded Canon's up. I also simply took the Nikon price directly from MR's article, with no changes. From what I wrote, it was a very fair, very accurate assessment of the cost differential. If you want to quibble over the original $70 difference ($1070) in my illustration it's meaningless. The point was the differential, and the accessibility of these lenses to the masses, not the few of us that can pick and choose.
Intentional or not your numbers were off and I just corrected them. Neither of these lenses are meant to be accessible or desirable for the masses; they're niche lenses, and even at $1150 the Canon isn't exactly what most people would consider a budget lens.

Quote
Do you own a Canon 24mm or are you just repeating something you read somewhere?

I own it, and have used one without issue for years. That does not mean that a new, currently manufactured and engineered lens will not surpass it, but again, going only by MR's discussion, there was no unequivocal statement of superiority; that still remains to be seen....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No I have not used it, and never claimed I have. I said point-blank my info on the 24 TS-E was second hand. There definitely seems to be a pattern to the feedback though, with complaints about CA and light falloff, as well as lack of sharpness on high-res bodies such as 1Ds Mk2/Mk3.
Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2008, 08:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There definitely seems to be a pattern to the feedback though, with complaints about CA and light falloff, as well as lack of sharpness on high-res bodies such as 1Ds Mk2/Mk3.

I wonder how much of this 'pattern' is from other people who have never 'actually' used or own the lens... makes you wonder eh?
Logged

mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2008, 08:42:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder how much of this 'pattern' is from other people who have never 'actually' used or own the lens... makes you wonder eh?

In the spirit of creating a 'reliable' pattern I can say,with certainty,that my sample
of the 24 TS-E is a very weak performer on either the 1Ds2 or 1Ds3.

CA,while correctable,is VERY evident and the lack of 'sharpness' is proving to be
a disappointment on the 1Ds3.

In fairness,prints up to 11x17 or maybe 13x19 are decent but fall short of other lenses
at 24mm.

I did try,briefly,the Nikkor 24 TS on a 5D a couple of months ago but wasn't blown away
with the difference.  CA required less correction than the Canon 24TS-E but since I only
tried it handheld on a 5D and not a 1Ds3 I can't really draw any useful conclsion
with regards to sharpness.

Mark
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2008, 12:00:35 AM »
ReplyReply

There is no doubt that the 24 is weak compared to the 45 and 90, but it still produces a very useful product if you stick to around f11 and don't shift it out to the limits. It is my primary architecture tool and I have used it for magazine shoots for everything from Su Casa, New Mexico Magazine and Fine Homebuilding to World Architecture Magazine. If the Nikon is allot better and could be adapted, I would certainly buy it just to save me some post production time.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Panorama
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2008, 07:21:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is no doubt that the 24 is weak compared to the 45 and 90, but it still produces a very useful product if you stick to around f11 and don't shift it out to the limits. It is my primary architecture tool and I have used it for magazine shoots for everything from Su Casa, New Mexico Magazine and Fine Homebuilding to World Architecture Magazine. If the Nikon is allot better and could be adapted, I would certainly buy it just to save me some post production time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's no doubt that the Nikon can be used. One benefit to Canon's EF mount is that it can take just about any lens from any mfg. I'm waiting to see what happens between the two myself and if the Nikon is superior (by a lot, not just a little bit), I'll consider purchasing it as well. All you need is an adapter, and one that provides focus confirmation would be apples-to-apples in my view since both lenses are MF....
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 07:21:48 AM by Panorama » Logged
Panorama
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2008, 07:24:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your point is well taken. The Canon 24 TSE is much better value, even if the Nikon lens is found to be superior. But, as you point out, the Canon is a much older lens and Canon has long amortized its development and tooling. The 24 PC-E is a brand new lens for Nikon, with all of the investment that this entails.

The point is moot though, since Nikon owners don't have the option of using the less expensive Canon lens.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ahhh, Michael, how quickly we've lost you. The point is not moot because those of us "still" shooting Canon CAN take advantage of the options.  
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad