Talk me into or out of the 45mm PC-e

[uaiomex]

I used to use a Canon TC1.4XII with my 17TS. The results were exceptional, barely any degradation. Now I use (rarely needed) the same TC with my 24TSII. Same thing, it works as a charm.
Eduardo

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... why should I care?

Only if you want to learn something. And you can't learn if you only listen to those who agree with you (hint: they are just confirming what you already think, or know, or think you know - also known as a confirmation bias).

[uaiomex]

Can you explain why? Because of the railings?
Eduardo

In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Can you explain why? Because of the railings?

See reply #13 by MrSmith.

[trevarthan]

When I need a little more reach, I use my self-modified TC-14E on the 24. This now gets me a 36mm on FX

As I'm a Nikon guy, this interests me. Is your 24 a PC-e? Is the TC-14E the original or a II? I'm also wondering if the soon to be released TC-14E III would work with my 24 PC-E: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-Teleconverter-TC-14E-1-4x/dp/B00KBC1WUY

i find its best to use the optimum apertures for the lens you are using with it.

That makes sense because the lens is sharpest at that aperture. In my case, the sharpest spot for the 24mm PC-E is f5.6. This would be... f7.84 with a 1.4x converter, right? Does that mean it suffers from diffraction the same as f8, but with a 5% degradation on top of that from the additional glass?

Only if you want to learn something. And you can't learn if you only listen to those who agree with you (hint: they are just confirming what you already think, or know, or think you know - also known as a confirmation bias).

I think you're being too literal. Take the tilt shift article on this very site, for example: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml

Here's a quote: "For example, by tilting the lens forward by the right distance, a photographer is able to adjust the plane of focus to run along the ground, giving a vastly increased apparent depth of field, even with the lens wide open!"

So when you said "In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF." I think you meant that the DOF doesn't actually change with tilt, which is almost true (it does become wedge shaped on the end away from the camera, which can help), but also extremely literal and obtuse, because that's not how people generally describe WHY we tilt the lens in the first place.

Am I wrong? Did you actually mean something else?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... "For example, by tilting the lens forward by the right distance, a photographer is able to adjust the plane of focus to run along the ground, giving a vastly increased apparent depth of field, even with the lens wide open!"

So when you said "In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF." I think you meant that the DOF doesn't actually change with tilt, which is true, but also extremely literal and obtuse, because that's not how people generally describe WHY we tilt the lens in the first place.

Am I wrong? Did you actually mean something else?

The key word is in bold above "along the ground." In your OP examples, you have not just the ground, but also vertical structures, railings and building, that run perpendicular (i.e., not along) the ground. As MrSmith pointed out, the tops of railings and buildings are thus inevitably OOF.

Perhaps my use of "DOF" in this context was confusing, so let's just say "no amount of tilt would result in keeping everything in focus."

As you can see from the illustration of the Scheimpflug Principle, there is ony one plane of focus (along the ground):

[trevarthan]

Perhaps my use of "DOF" in this context was confusing, so let's just say "no amount of tilt would result in keeping everything in focus."

Thanks, Captain Obvious. I never would have figured that out without your help.

[uaiomex]

I think you are in conflict here between your technical issues and your artistic merits. Your questions are fine but your examples are not because of the reason I just mentioned.
No amount of tilt would get everything in focus because of the railings in those bridge pictures. The railings are too close to the camera. It doesn't matter with objects too far like mountains for example.
And yes, I think Mr. Blagojevic is not too helpful either. He even confused at first, and I've been a pro for more than 30 years. Not all people rise every morning with the right foot, I think.
Eduardo

As I'm a Nikon guy, this interests me. Is your 24 a PC-e? Is the TC-14E the original or a II? I'm also wondering if the soon to be released TC-14E III would work with my 24 PC-E: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-Teleconverter-TC-14E-1-4x/dp/B00KBC1WUY

That makes sense because the lens is sharpest at that aperture. In my case, the sharpest spot for the 24mm PC-E is f5.6. This would be... f7.84 with a 1.4x converter, right? Does that mean it suffers from diffraction the same as f8, but with a 5% degradation on top of that from the additional glass?

I think you're being too literal. Take the tilt shift article on this very site, for example: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml

Here's a quote: "For example, by tilting the lens forward by the right distance, a photographer is able to adjust the plane of focus to run along the ground, giving a vastly increased apparent depth of field, even with the lens wide open!"

So when you said "In the OP examples, no amount of tilt would result in increased DOF." I think you meant that the DOF doesn't actually change with tilt, which is almost true (it does become wedge shaped on the end away from the camera, which can help), but also extremely literal and obtuse, because that's not how people generally describe WHY we tilt the lens in the first place.

Am I wrong? Did you actually mean something else?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...No amount of tilt would get everything in focus..

And yes, I think Mr. Blagojevic is not too helpful either. He even confused at first, and I've been a pro for more than 30 years...

What was I confused about? You just said exactly the same thing (above) I said earlier. And what you being a pro has to do with me being "confused"?

[uaiomex]

I meant me, sorry, my bad. I missed inadvertingly some typing. I meant:  "He even confused ME at first".

What was I confused about? You just said exactly the same thing (above) I said earlier. And what you being a pro has to do with me being "confused"?

[trevarthan]

I think you are in conflict here between your technical issues and your artistic merits. Your questions are fine but your examples are not because of the reason I just mentioned.
No amount of tilt would get everything in focus because of the railings in those bridge pictures. The railings are too close to the camera. It doesn't matter with objects too far like mountains for example.

At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying. Both of these images were accepted by Shutterstock, which was my goal (as opposed to satisfying you lot). But I admit I was surprised they took the 85mm shot. Perhaps the reviewer found it interesting, or perhaps all they care about is that a certain percentage of the image is sharp, in which case the tilt served it's purpose. The 24mm shot has sold at least once already, which is always a good sign. I just shot it this past weekend.

Nobody asked me, but I personally think either of these shots would be better using focus stacking. At least in theory. Unfortunately, Nikon hasn't released the bloody SDK yet for my D810, so I can't DO focus stacking, unless I want to do it manually, which I certainly do not.

None of the above is on topic. Whether I'm an idiot or not because of how I choose to use my tilt shift lenses doesn't matter, and frankly it's a highly opinionated topic. Your opinions are different than Shutterstocks, and I care about their opinions more because they're how I intend to make money. Clearly, Shutterstock wants sharper images all the way through too. But if they'll take it and it sells and the customer is happy, that's sufficient.

[uaiomex]

First, you are not an idiot nor I think so, believe me. Also, I don't think I defer from Shutterstock but who knows.
You are free to use your tilts however it gets your kicks. Seriously.
Maybe I'm the one that rose this morning with the wrong foot. LOL!
Eduardo

At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying. Both of these images were accepted by Shutterstock, which was my goal (as opposed to satisfying you lot). But I admit I was surprised they took the 85mm shot. Perhaps the reviewer found it interesting, or perhaps all they care about is that a certain percentage of the image is sharp, in which case the tilt served it's purpose. The 24mm shot has sold at least once already, which is always a good sign. I just shot it this past weekend.

Nobody asked me, but I personally think either of these shots would be better using focus stacking. At least in theory. Unfortunately, Nikon hasn't released the bloody SDK yet for my D810, so I can't DO focus stacking, unless I want to do it manually, which I certainly do not.

None of the above is on topic. Whether I'm an idiot or not because of how I choose to use my tilt shift lenses doesn't matter, and frankly it's a highly opinionated topic. Your opinions are different than Shutterstocks, and I care about their opinions more because they're how I intend to make money. Clearly, Shutterstock wants sharper images all the way through too. But if they'll take it and it sells and the customer is happy, that's sufficient.

[Kirk Gittings]

Good luck with that.

[Walt Roycraft]

I own the 24mm PC-e and the 85mm PC-e. For product photography (something I admittedly don't do a lot of), I love the 85mm. For landscape photography, I find myself using the 24mm almost exclusively. Here's an example of a scene taken with both lenses (on different days with vastly different light):

Let me be clear: I'm absolutely NOT interested in the miniature effect. I see a lot of reviews around the net written by people who seems to think the only reason to buy a tilt shift lens is the miniature effect. I view the miniature effect a lot like over processed HDR: meh. I would use this lens to place the focal plane in line with my subject at f5.6, expanding what is in focus, not isolating it. I'll be using this lens exclusively on a tripod with a D810 and live view. I don't understand why everyone wants to hand hold these things.

Anyway, I picked these two focal lengths back in 2010 because I loved the way they lied to me. 24mm is wide and exaggerates the foreground and expands space. 85mm is telephoto and exaggerates the background, compressing space. 45mm is just normal. I've found a few scenes recently where I can't take the shot without 45mm. 24mm is too wide to be interesting, and with 85mm I don't have enough room. Sitting here typing, I realize maybe I could do an 85mm panorama, but the light changes so fast after sunset and the exposures are so long, I'm not sure how that would work.

I mostly want to take cityscapes and landscapes. Should I bite the bullet and buy the 45mm PC-e, or not? What's your opinion?

"At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying."

First off, you don't need the PC lenses to "lie" to you, any lens will do that.
Secondly, I think your objective was to bring all elements into focus without using focus stacking. It seems you did not understand the limitations of the lenses, namely not being able to bring the vertical objects into focus top and bottom.

You asked us for our opinions. Not only do I think you should NOT bite the bullet for yet another pc lens, but should probably sell the 2 you have and save some money.

PS, just because someone is willing to buy something doesn't make it good. Look at Walmart!

[trevarthan]

Good luck with that.

I'll need it, right?

[trevarthan]

"At 24mm, it really doesn't bother me. Viewed fullscreen, the image is rather pleasing. At 85mm, it's pretty annoying."

Secondly, I think your objective was to bring all elements into focus without using focus stacking. It seems you did not understand the limitations of the lenses, namely not being able to bring the vertical objects into focus top and bottom.

You're not listening. My objective was to pass the shutterstock filters and sell photos. It worked. I do understand the limitations of the lens, what you don't understand is that I don't care that the top part of the frame is out of focus so long as people buy it. I understand that offends you on some purist level. It bugs me a little too, but only because I'm curious how to create a sharper image, technically, not because I think the image is bad as it is. It certainly doesn't bother me enough to take the photo off shutterstock. Someone less educated in the art of photography might just find it interesting and buy it.

You asked us for our opinions. Not only do I think you should NOT bite the bullet for yet another pc lens, but should probably sell the 2 you have and save some money.

It really bugs you seeing the top of the image out of focus, huh? Like, OCD level frustration. I hope someone buys it and puts it up on a billboard right in front of your house.

[Walt Roycraft]

It really bugs you seeing the top of the image out of focus, huh? Like, OCD level frustration. I hope someone buys it and puts it up on a billboard right in front of your house.

WOW

[trevarthan]

WOW

Too much? It sounded pretty funny in my head at the time. You did just tell me to give up and go home. You kinda deserved it.

[Walt Roycraft]

Too much? It sounded pretty funny in my head at the time. You did just tell me to give up and go home. You kinda deserved it.

Give up on those lenses, or learn how to use them. Go home?, No.

FWIW... I have spent my whole career, starting in 1970 using large format view cameras. Countless hours in back breaking positions tweaking an 8X10 to achieve perfect focus. Close to 40 years of doing this.
posts like yours come off as smart a**  and uncaring to the profession I spent my career in. I give a dam about using proper terminology. About LEARNING how to use equipment and not be so flippant about the trade.
I don't know you from Adam but I feel you are missing out on getting better with your craft. For me, it's not about who buys my work. It's about pride in craftsmanship. The will to find out how to do a job right, even if you can "get away" with less. In the end it's not about selling, it's about learning and growing in a craft you have chosen.
I wish you the best

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... as opposed to satisfying you lot)

From a dictionary: "lot - a group or a person of a particular kind (generally used in a derogatory or dismissive way): an inefficient lot, our town council | he was known as a bad lot | you lot think you're clever, don't you?"

Well, you came here and asked "us lot" a question. We tried to help. As they say, "you can take a horse to water..."

...Whether I'm an idiot or not because of how I choose to use my tilt shift lenses doesn't matter... if they'll take it and it sells and the customer is happy, that's sufficient

While you might get lucky otherwise occasionally, it generally helps to know what you are doing. There will be times when you'll desperately need it.