Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon 24mm PC-E  (Read 15086 times)
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2008, 08:00:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you sure you can use the new Nikkor PC-E lens on a Canon? Have you tried it or know somebody who has?

That lens is not useable (apart from wide open) even on older MF Nikons, courtesy of its (Canon-like) electrodiaphragm hence the E in its name, so I will be very surprised if someone has come up with a suitable Canon adapter so soon.

So I suspect, lost or not, Michael is right, at least for now...
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 08:16:48 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2008, 08:49:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think it will work with any current EOS adapters (including the 'G' adapter from 16-9.net) unless you're content with shooting at f/3.5 all the time. As Nikos mentioned this is the first Nikkor lens to use an electromagnetic aperture. My understanding is that the aperture button on the lens only works with cameras that are compatible with Nikon's VR lenses (since the PC-E uses the same VR contact to get power). So any EOS adapter would have to be compatible with VR to work with PC-E lenses.
Logged

mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2008, 09:58:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think it will work with any current EOS adapters (including the 'G' adapter from 16-9.net) unless you're content with shooting at f/3.5 all the time. As Nikos mentioned this is the first Nikkor lens to use an electromagnetic aperture. My understanding is that the aperture button on the lens only works with cameras that are compatible with Nikon's VR lenses (since the PC-E uses the same VR contact to get power). So any EOS adapter would have to be compatible with VR to work with PC-E lenses


This is true but I was able to get the lens set to f11 and use it on the 5D by putting the lens on a Nikon body,taking an exposure at f11 and then removing the lens and attaching it to the 5D.
At this point the aperture remains closed to whatever setting was made when on the Nikon body
and the when placed on the camera body,with a standard Novoflex adapter,the working
aperture of f11 remained intact.

It made for difficult viewing through the viewfinder,understandably, and would not be a
viable solution whenever accurate focussing with tilt  is implemented but it was usefull in
getting a first impression as to how the lens compared to its Canon equivalent


Mark
Logged
cblesch
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2008, 04:20:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Early in his review, Michael wrote:
"While some perspective control can be done digitally in Photoshop and similar programs, often with decent results, in the end if you can do them with a rising front on a tilt / shift lens the results will be superior."

I don't own one of these lenses, and at $2K this hobbyist probably won't be buying one soon. I've tried Photoshop's perspective control on the proverbial backward-leaning buildings and found that adjustments look quite unnatural - when I get the buildings' vertical lines parallel, the upper halves of the buildings looks unnaturally big. On a lower building that I had to shoot up close and correct, I got the verticals on door and window frames parallel and vertical but the horizontals were not horizontal. Would these images have those same unnatural looks if I were shooting them with a shifting lenses?

My solution with one building that I thought looked unnatural was to go back with a wider angle lens, shoot with my camera back as parallel as possible to the building (putting the building in the top left quadrant of the frame), then crop out the bottom and right halves of the frame. That left precious few megapixels, however.

All basic questions, I know, but I have no experience with this - input and advice welcome.

Carl
Logged
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2008, 04:50:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael..could you give an up-date with the PC-E on a D300?  This combination might not be perfect but good would be OK for this hobbyist.
Logged
Panorama
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2008, 08:32:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you sure you can use the new Nikkor PC-E lens on a Canon? Have you tried it or know somebody who has?

That lens is not useable (apart from wide open) even on older MF Nikons, courtesy of its (Canon-like) electrodiaphragm hence the E in its name, so I will be very surprised if someone has come up with a suitable Canon adapter so soon.

So I suspect, lost or not, Michael is right, at least for now...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Seems like I made a mistake. I hadn't really researched these lenses much and didn't realize that they changed the aperture setting mechanism. I incorrectly assumed it was going to work like every other Nikon lens.

Oh well, if that's not the case and there's no workable adapter, I guess I won't be buying one....
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2008, 07:04:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael..could you give an up-date with the PC-E on a D300?  This combination might not be perfect but good would be OK for this hobbyist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's little to add. It effectively becomes a 36mm lens, which may or may not be an issue for the type of work that you do.

Some knobs can hit the camera's built-in flash housing, rending the lens impossible to use in that position. You can remove it from the camera, change the orientation and make it work, but it's a pain. I'd hate to have to do it on a regular basis.

Michael
Logged
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2008, 08:26:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
. I've tried Photoshop's perspective control on the proverbial backward-leaning buildings and found that adjustments look quite unnatural - when I get the buildings' vertical lines parallel, the upper halves of the buildings looks unnaturally big.
For tall buildings shot from ground level and relatively close, even with a view camera one wouldn't strive to have the verticals vertical - the eye is expecting some convergence at the top of the building.  If you keep a little convergence, they will look more natural.
Quote
On a lower building that I had to shoot up close and correct, I got the verticals on door and window frames parallel and vertical but the horizontals were not horizontal. Would these images have those same unnatural looks if I were shooting them with a shifting lenses?
Carl
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For adjusting the horizontals, try dragging the side handles up and down in the PC mode of Photoshop.


I've not used the 45 or 90 but have read the common verdicts, that the 24 is not as "good"  I HAVE seen the CA , especially in the corners on full shift (right to the edge of the red zone on the scale) even on a 1.6 camera.  I don't recall where, but I have seen a procedure that increases the canvas size and puts the optical axis in the centre of the canvas (and the image shifted away into the corner).  The CA corrections will then work as they were originally designed, i.e., assuming the optical axis is centred in the frame.  If I recall correctly , this can be done through a DNG, but I may have dreamed that part

Andy
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2008, 11:30:11 PM »
ReplyReply

If I can get away with it, I'd rather use a good quality wider angle lens such as the Nikkor 14-28/2.8, and use the perspective type controls in PS. In addition to 'perspective', there's 'distort' and 'warp'. Using a combination of these tools, one should be able to mimic any effect one would get with a shift lens.

The issue of better quality that could result from using a dedicated shift lens is of concern, of course. However, I haven't done any comparisons. Has anyone done any comparisons? One shouldn't just assume that the PC lens will produce better results.

On the face of it, one might assume if one pulls out the corners, loses part of the image, extrapolates pixels that are further away from the corners and sides, one simply ends up diluting resolution.

On the other hand, the resolution of shift lens at the edges of maximum shift tends to be rather poor anyway. A good lens like the Nikkor 14-28 is reported to be sharp right to the edges. Slightly away from the edges and corners, it should be even sharper. Extrapolate those (sharper) pixels that are slightly away from the edges and corners and it's quite possible that the resolution in the corners will be no worse than the result from the PC lens. Who knows! In some cases perhaps better, depending on the lens.

(Mark Welsh, please sort out those delays with your Nikon/Canon adapter   )

ps. I should add that my standard for 24mm PC lenses is the Canon TS-E 24. I would hope that images from the Nikkor 14-28, after perspective type adjustments in PS, would be at least as good. It will be interesting to do a comparison... when I get my adapter.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 11:41:03 PM by Ray » Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2008, 06:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have enough good quality data, then Photoshop (or often in my case, SilkyPix pre-raw conversion) adjustments can work very well indeed.  The problem, of course, with major perspective correction is that the data at the top of the frame is being stretched quite a bit so will degrade to some extent.

The following is an image taken with a Sigma DP1 compact, decoded using Sigma's software, then fairly heavily perspective corrected in Photoshop and then upscaled substantially to 51mb for stock submission

http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4704703_fc...8745_XbWmF-O-LB

There is some stair stepping and resolution loss toward the top (and some jpeg compression), but this is pushing things close to their limit for both camera and perspective correction.

This, on the other hand, is a combo of 12 (2x6 exposure fused) Mamiya shots, downsized, and obviously has better detail.

http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4704703_fc...8557_VHvR7-O-LB


Quentin
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 06:50:04 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2008, 10:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The following is an image taken with a Sigma DP1 compact, decoded using Sigma's software, then fairly heavily perspective corrected in Photoshop and then upscaled substantially to 51mb for stock submission
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Sigma DP1! The Olympus E-3 and now the DP1. Quentin, you must have a lot of cameras in your collection   .

I don't really see any problem with the perspective correction of that DP1 image. It's true the brickwork, top left corner, seems a bit soft. But that can be improved with a bit of local contrast enhancement and appropriate sharpening. Even without that, it could be considered that the soft brickwork is is simply out of focus.

Perhaps more of a worry is the fact you didn't use your Mamiya ZD for this shot. Then you might have got great 3-dimensionality from the front door to infinity.  
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 10:12:37 AM by Ray » Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2008, 10:39:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Sigma DP1! The Olympus E-3 and now the DP1. Quentin, you must have a lot of cameras in your collection   .

I don't really see any problem with the perspective correction of that DP1 image. It's true the brickwork, top left corner, seems a bit soft. But that can be improved with a bit of local contrast enhancement and appropriate sharpening. Even without that, it could be considered that the soft brickwork is is simply out of focus.

Perhaps more of a worry is the fact you didn't use your Mamiya ZD for this shot. Then you might have got great 3-dimensionality from the front door to infinity. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Possibly Ray, but then I was leaving a meeting, the sun was shining, so it was a "grab" shot, but nonetheless I think a testament to how good the SD1 is.  The ZD does not fit in the bottom of a briefcase, unfortunately  

Quentin
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 10:40:59 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
luong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2008, 01:36:04 PM »
ReplyReply

> One shouldn't just assume that the PC lens will produce better results.

This would indeed depend on the amount of shift needed. In cases the amount of correction in post-processing in substantial, for instance shrinking a side of an image by 1/3, it's hard to imagine that any optical differences would make up for that many lost pixels.

There is also another reason why the PC lens will help achieve better results: you see what you get at image capture, and can therefore adjust composition accordingly.
Logged

AlanG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2008, 02:25:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I've gotten very good results with the 24TSE on Canon FF bodies. I use DXO and although there is no DXO module for this lens, it gets recognized as a 24 and the CA gets corrected automatically.  The same with the 45 TSE.  I also use Nikon 35 and 28 PC lenses along with 2 Russian shift lenses and the results in DXO are excellent with all of them.

When using a shift and stitching two shots, I use a sliding tripod plate to re-center the lens (left and right) in order to keep the optical axis in the same place on both shots.  This gets rid of any paralax between near and far objects taht would otherwise result.

I use Autopano for stitching and the results are perfect.  Recently I started using Autopano directly on RAW files and results have been very good that way also.
Logged

Alan Goldstein
Goldsteinphoto website

I have a new fine art project. Please take a look:
Fine art site

Galleries of images at Photoshelter:
Galleries
CJL
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95



WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2008, 04:40:43 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?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've owned four or five different copies of the TS-E 24mm f3.5L.  The sharpness is okay (but not great) but the CA is brutally bad - probably the worst of any lens I've owned.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad