The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

24mm PC-E Episode 2

D&A

Well-known member
I played with a friend's 14-24 last week -- the center was great, but the corners were not much better on it than my 20 AF-D. I need to see this better 24PC on my D800, but my guess is it's eons better that squeezing and stretching pixels in post.
I would agree, but I would also expect it to be somewhat dependent on the particular lens sample one tested for each and separately what camera this comparison was tried on...say a D3/D700 vs. D800? The 14-24mm corners on a D700 (especially at 24mm) when shot at f2.8 are somewhat soft but even f4 is quite acceptable and beyond, very good. This isn't quite the case when that lens is used with a D800. So the 14-24 may be an acceptable substitute for the 14mm f2.8 PC-E on a D700....but possibly somewhat more questionable if a D800 is used.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

danielmoore

New member
Rather than doing any perspective edits (in all cases, starting with a level and plumb camera) I'm thinking simply comparing a vertical camera and subject with the 14-24 zoomed out as much as necessary to cover what the 24 PC-E sees and cropping. I'm guessing that as one zooms out the 14-24 to cover the equivalent angle of view of the shifted 24 PC-E that the barrel distortion will be very approximately equal with both lenses requiring a measure of lens correction for a truly rectilinear result. From what I've seen this doesn't seem too far fetched a notion.
 

tjv

Active member
If I may go off topic for one brief moment, can I please ask why you sold the S2, Tim? I didn't know you had one.

I am so with you on that: I had the first S2 in the UK and even then, they were blandishing the TS lens as something on the near rather than far horizon!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
If I may go off topic for one brief moment, can I please ask why you sold the S2, Tim? I didn't know you had one.
The story started here and ended via one dodgy lens, a centrefold problem with the sensor, and a decision to stick with Phase and upgrade to a 65+

I'm a congenital early adopter, but that was my biggest mistake. The only reasons to be in that system were the glass and the ergonomics. The glass was very slow to be delivered and though the ergonomics were much nicer than a Phamiya body, the teething problems annoyed me and it was just too big to be a walkaround system. And if you're not walking, you might as well take the best tool for the job, i.e. the 65+. (at that time).

Finally, I fairly quickly realised that the TS lens was essentially vapourware.
 

aboudd

New member
I am curious as to why anyone would compare the 14-24 to the 24MM PC-E. You couldn't have two lenses whose purpose by design is more opposite each other, one a zoom AF and the other a manual lens designed for precise use exclusively on a tripod. While I have used the 14-24 for architecture it was only because the 24 was not wide enough and I was in a situation to where the shift wasn't a factor as in this image I shot (in 9 layers) of the lobby of the Comcast HQ in Philadelphia. The shot did require distortion correction of course, but the end result was fine.
 
Last edited:

tjv

Active member
Thanks, Tim.
Maybe you have said somewhere before, but what is your subjective opinion on base ISO IQ between the two cameras? I know this seems a bit (far?) OT, especially in a thread regarding a 24mm PC-E lens, but I'm interested in how the two camera bodies compare if used on tripod, in natural light and in a considered and deliberate manner as you would with such a specialist lens.
If you'd prefer not to water down this thread with a reply, feel free to PM me if you have time.
Thanks,
T

The story started here and ended via one dodgy lens, a centrefold problem with the sensor, and a decision to stick with Phase and upgrade to a 65+

I'm a congenital early adopter, but that was my biggest mistake. The only reasons to be in that system were the glass and the ergonomics. The glass was very slow to be delivered and though the ergonomics were much nicer than a Phamiya body, the teething problems annoyed me and it was just too big to be a walkaround system. And if you're not walking, you might as well take the best tool for the job, i.e. the 65+. (at that time).

Finally, I fairly quickly realised that the TS lens was essentially vapourware.
 

D&A

Well-known member
I am curious as to why anyone would compare the 14-24 to the 24MM PC-E. You couldn't have two lenses whose purpose by design is more opposite each other, one a zoom AF and the other a manual lens designed for precise use exclusively on a tripod. While I have used the 14-24 for architecture it was only because the 24 was not wide enough and I was in a situation to where the shift wasn't a factor as in this image I shot (in 9 layers) of the lobby of the Comcast HQ in Philadelphia. The shot did require distortion correction of course, but the end result was fine.
Aboud, I personally couldn't agree with you more in that both lenses are designed for very different purposes and use....not even close. The only reason I mentioned the possibility of using the zoom at a wider setting and then correcting distortion in post processing, is simply that samples of the 24PC I tried, were often subpar when shifted.....and in terms od edge to edge sharpness, the 14-24 was often superior. Short of switching systems, it was just a possible stop gap measure until Nikon possibly addressed the uniformity in sample to sample performance in the 24 PC.

Dave (D&A)
 

aboudd

New member
Well Dave, this lens has been available for a long time. It is obvious that Nikon's standards for consistency are wanting, even for a lens that costs about $2,000 a pop. Do I think they will raise their standards? If they haven't by now, I don't expect so.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks, Tim.
Maybe you have said somewhere before, but what is your subjective opinion on base ISO IQ between the two cameras? I know this seems a bit (far?) OT, especially in a thread regarding a 24mm PC-E lens, but I'm interested in how the two camera bodies compare if used on tripod, in natural light and in a considered and deliberate manner as you would with such a specialist lens.
If you'd prefer not to water down this thread with a reply, feel free to PM me if you have time.
Thanks,
T
Happy to answer Buddy... at base ISO (and I have never shot them both at the same time so this is memory against the present) there's effectively bugger all difference other than the fact that the D800 shadows push better and the Leica has better glass. Some prefer the colours of one versus the other. That's it!
 

D&A

Well-known member
Well Dave, this lens has been available for a long time. It is obvious that Nikon's standards for consistency are wanting, even for a lens that costs about $2,000 a pop. Do I think they will raise their standards? If they haven't by now, I don't expect so.
You make a very valid point Aboud. What I find interesting and a bit perplexing is some Nikon lenses have exceptional sample to sample constancy while others are fair at best. Generally wide angle zooms are the most difficult, since they deal with many small elements and groupings that are hard to align properly, whereas single focal length telephoto"s are generally the easiest, relatively speaking. One lens that also seems to have a lot of variability is the 24-70 f2.8 zoom. The Nikon 24PC I presume is a special case since achieving on axis performance may be relatively straight forward to achieve good performance, but requires considerable more effort and optical know-how to keep optical standards high when shifted. What exactly is the production issue is with some Nikon 24 PC samples, I simply don't know.

David (D&A)
 

danielmoore

New member
Nikon turned the heat up on themselves by introducing this 36 megapixel body. That ought to cause some stir at the meetings around lens QC. Knowing there's likely even denser sensors on the way must have some influence in their future plans for lens resolution goals and manufacturing tolerances.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Update: how to focus this lens

This is really complicated. Really.

Talking about shifts, rise in particular and in landscape orientation:

I have shots where the top is in very good focus at 10 rise and F8. And this is on a planar subject (a building in front of me to which I am well aligned). Repeat: there is NO significant edge weakness even at extremes of shift. However, to get those sharp tops you have to focus in the middle of the top third of the frame in LV, and then the bottom third of the frame looks soft. If you focus in the centre of the frame you get an acceptable level of sharpness throughout, judges at 50% on scree, though the top is less sharp than before.

At five rise, focus in the same way, maybe a touch lower, and all is good.

At no rise, focus on the top third line and you're about right.

Now switch to a distant landscape. WTF! Still at F8, focus on the centre of the frame and the edges are a bit fuzzy. Focus on the edges and the centre is really quite fuzzy. Focus on the right or left hand third, all is acceptable. Then the madness starts: focus on the bottom third line, even though the subject at that point is much near, and that point is sharp, the centre is sharp, and the edges are perfectly reasonable...

So the general rule is: don't focus on the centre. More specifically, for shifts, focus on somewhere near to but not as far as the part of the planar subject which is furthest away from the nodal point.

A really good technique, and on my lens this guaranteed to give you one good fame, is to set your shift, set your aperture, then focus one on each of the following spots:

centre
half way to the top third line
the top third line
half way between the top third line and the top of the frame

No doubt time will refine my technique but blimey, this lens has a non-planar, non perfectly curved DOF which varies with aperture, shift and distance to subject.

Bracket. But at least it can be done: here's a crop from the extreme top of a frame with ten shift, at 100% - and I must say, I can live with this!
(focus was on the pale stone just under the base of the flagpole...)


 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: Update: how to focus this lens

this lens has a non-planar, non perfectly curved DOF which varies with aperture, shift and distance to subject.
Thats pretty common with wide angle of view, retrofocus designs, and you need to keep in mind the total IC on the 24 PC makes it extremely wide angle of view. You see the same thing in wide tech or LF lenses if you look for them. (3rd order waveform PoF's, where sometimes the tail runs off to beyond infinity ;) )

It' precisely why I lauded Nikon's Live View for use with the PC lenses. I have my custom function set "B" dedicated to tripod mounted, live view capture: 3 second delay, AF on rear button only, center button jumps to 100% view to aid manually focusing.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Here's a full frame at F11. This is about the best I can get, and to me is entirely satisfactory though clearly not perfect. Shoot at low ISO and you can even use a selective sharpening brush at the extremes, which I have not done here.

POF was where the white blob is.


Full size 91% quality JPEG here

 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Tim

one tip about the most wideangle TS lenses, don´t correct the lines for 100% I do always leave a tiny littly bit of tilted angle, this simply looks more natural. Additionally it helps with the cornersharpness .

About the Nikon PC-E´s take care you have a version with intact mechanics !
The locking screws at worn out lenses are lifting the front lens and leave it down when opened significantly. (this was also described in Detail by Diggloyd.com) of course this will result in moved sharpness planes and have worst possible results as a correct focus and tilt will be moved significantly !

and further: all users of the 3 new PC-E lenses can be having a tripod clamp now. I´m happy to tell that we are selling a new product see images
The price off germany will be 335,- € (+19% VAT if sold to Germany/ in Germany) plus shipment .







regards
Stefan
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tim

one tip about the most wideangle TS lenses, don´t correct the lines for 100% I do always leave a tiny littly bit of tilted angle, this simply looks more natural. Additionally it helps with the cornersharpness

regards
Stefan
Thanks Stefan,

I totally agree and would do ths in practice, but it presented too many variables in a test situation. In reality I would probably get round 'difficult' shots by shooting with less shift and more camera angle, then partially correcting in post to allow slight converging verticals, allowing processing to take some of the strain off the shift performance of the lens, but I think my test today shows that with care, you can get perfect verticals in camera with full shift and acceptable resolution!
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
:) I was nearly 100 % sure you knew this ! But maybe it helps some other people reading this.
And yes- the postprocessing in combination with an optical tilt/shift lens can do astonishing things. I would even go as far as to say , nearly 90 % of what could have been done with a (full movement) viewcamera.

greetings from beautiful Allgäu
Stefan
 

tjv

Active member
Well, that's pretty much the most extreme shift I'd ever want to do. Even then, I'd only do it once in a blue moon. The top of the frame is pretty mushy as you say but in the overall scheme of things not too bad.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
So, fully shifted it's either a 44x36 or 24x56 frame? How hard would it be to rotate the lens and stitch a 44x56? Is that likely to run into geometric distortions (like barrel)?

This looks pretty darn attractive...
 
Top