Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JeffKohn on May 12, 2008, 07:47:03 pm
-
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).
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
[deleted]
And after some more thinking, I found out I was entirely wrong. Nevermind.
-- Olaf
-
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.
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....
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
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
-
. 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.
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4704703_fcaF3#297038745_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 (http://qdfb.smugmug.com/gallery/4704703_fcaF3#278348557_VHvR7-O-LB)
Quentin
-
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.
-
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
-
> 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.
-
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.
-
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.