It's been drab weather here in Raleigh and I haven't had a chance to play with the 45 pc-e for a long time. But I took it and the D700 for a stroll at lunch ... kind of to force myself to go out and shoot.
There is so much to learn with this lens, but I'm liking how close you can get! A 45 and 1/2 life size macro is kind of a nice perspective. I'm learning that you can shift your background around, to sometimes get it out of the way. All and all ... nice lens (so so operator )

So here are some macro's from this afternoon ... comments welcome.

yeah dude these are rockin , wow excellent tones in this stuff bro

Nice - really like that 3rd one! Now, stop posting, I really want one of these lenses and you're not making it easy!

I agree with Steve, on both counts..........

Nice work, Pavel. No. 3 is great!

Glad you forced yourself to shoot, certainy our gain. Nice stuff.

Thanks everyone. Anyone else up to posting any shots from the pc-e series? Educational .. ya know ... and there's a bunch of guys on the fence about these .... let's help them make a decision!

I've been nervous about spending so much money on the 24 ... which I've got ordered, but seems nowhere to be found. I could sure use a few shots ... just to keep the faith. So c'mon!

Great shots! Did you shift or tilt on any of these?

Pavel wrote:
Thanks everyone. Anyone else up to posting any shots from the pc-e series? Educational .. ya know ... and there's a bunch of guys on the fence about these .... let's help them make a decision!

D300 with 45 PC-E



Pavel wrote:I've been nervous about spending so much money on the 24 ... which I've got ordered, but seems nowhere to be found. I could sure use a few shots ... just to keep the faith. So c'mon!

Here are a couple with the 24mm PC-E and D300.

Perspective control:



Tilt:



I just got through doing some rigorous testing between the 24 PC-E and the 14-24/2.8 this morning, and they are pretty much indistinguishable at near focus, and I'm starting to think the PC-E may actually be better in the edges at about one meter focus distance. I will be doing more tests and will have to take these lenses out for head to head shots at infinity before I have definitive conclusions. Now that I did the function alignment modification I'm looking forward to really putting the 24mm PC-E through it's paces the way this lens was meant to be used for dynamic landscapes. I think once you get over the high price, you will be very pleased with this lens.

Tony ... thanks for the input. I especially like your shots because the tilt and shift are not obvious. I'm quite amazed how things can be changed, for example how backgrounds can be moved over and such while still producing photos that look natural - as you have shown here.

Which of the two focal lenghts do you find lend itself to being improved by either tilt or shift more often. I mean, which of the two do you use more often and which reacts stronger to the inputs. I'm finding that 45 is great as a focal lenght that I like, but I' wish for more shift than is often possible and I find the effect very mild. But keep in mind that I'm quite inexperienced with it ... so I could be quite off ... or perhaps I haven't found the right subject matter and composition yet.

I'm having a serious crisis about the 24. I'm quite serious about maybe cancelling the order. It's not the money exactly (though it sure could be put to other things) but somehow I think I'm about done with lenses and should just put the stuff I have to use. I can't decide how the 24 will work out. I have no doubt that it is a superb optic but I wonder just how much I will find the movements applicable. So any thoughts would be appreciated.

Right now I have a 12-24 tokina which I consider bearable due to the flexibility of having wide .. but the distortions is not trully acceptable to me for what I want to shoot. and of course that I can only use it from 18-24 on the D700. I have the 45 pc-e, the 60 micro and the 100 micro should be here this week. That seems like a pretty good kit for what I want to do. I also have a 200 f 4 ais which is great and unbelievably small, but I now hardly need or use that long a lens and the the 35-70 f 2.8 50 f 1.4 and 85 f 1.8. but I rarely use these. I guess the 35-70, my only zoom now, is like a security blanket. I keep thinking its nice to have a zoom like that for a walk around ... but then why don't I ever walk around with it?

So ... you folks out there. Does that sound like a pretty limiting kit? Or is less more? funny ... I want to sell off half of the rest!

So .. help me out with thinking through the 24 pc-e, will ya? The 25 zeiss would be it's replacement instead if I don't go for it. It's about 50/50 right now. I don't ever post "which lens should I get" ... but I sure can't seem to decide this time around.

Hey ... more pics .. please!

The flower shot is excellent and the first shot of the bridge is simply incredible....

I've got to start saving my pennies to get one of these lenses....

edit; Pavel, I have no idea what to tell you on your dilemma. I have no desire for a zeiss lens, but seeing some of these PC-E shots really puts the NAS up front for me.

Pavel wrote:
Which of the two focal lenghts do you find lend itself to being improved by either tilt or shift more often. I mean, which of the two do you use more often and which reacts stronger to the inputs. I'm finding that 45 is great as a focal lenght that I like, but I' wish for more shift than is often possible and I find the effect very mild. But keep in mind that I'm quite inexperienced with it ... so I could be quite off ... or perhaps I haven't found the right subject matter and composition yet.

Keeping in mind that I'm currently using DX format, so the angle of view is narrower and that plays a part in how these lenses would be used. That said, the 24mm benefits more from its shift function while the 45mm benefits more from its tilt function.

I'm having a serious crisis about the 24. I'm quite serious about maybe cancelling the order. It's not the money exactly (though it sure could be put to other things) but somehow I think I'm about done with lenses and should just put the stuff I have to use. I can't decide how the 24 will work out. I have no doubt that it is a superb optic but I wonder just how much I will find the movements applicable. So any thoughts would be appreciated.

The shift function and its excellent optics might well make the 24mm PC-E your most used lens on the D700.

Right now I have a 12-24 tokina which I consider bearable due to the flexibility of having wide .. but the distortions is not trully acceptable to me for what I want to shoot. and of course that I can only use it from 18-24 on the D700. I have the 45 pc-e, the 60 micro and the 100 micro should be here this week. That seems like a pretty good kit for what I want to do. I also have a 200 f 4 ais which is great and unbelievably small, but I now hardly need or use that long a lens and the the 35-70 f 2.8 50 f 1.4 and 85 f 1.8. but I rarely use these. I guess the 35-70, my only zoom now, is like a security blanket. I keep thinking its nice to have a zoom like that for a walk around ... but then why don't I ever walk around with it?

I'm not sure what kind of distortion you are referring to here. Pointing a wide angle up or down or placing a horizon away from the center of the frame cause perspective distortions which is what the shift is for. Focusing on near subjects causes barrel distortion, particularly with wider angle lenses, and I see that with both the 14-24/2.8 and the 24 PC-E.

The 85/2.8 PC-E or PC micro would be my preference for macros; I would skip the 60mm and 100mm micros. I would also get rid of the 35-70/2.8, the 85/1.8, and the 200/4; and I would replace them with the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR. In fact, if I were you I would get the 70-200/2.8 VR first and get the 24mm last, but I'm not you and how you shoot and what you shoot will dictate what your choices and priorities should be.

So .. help me out with thinking through the 24 pc-e, will ya? The 25 zeiss would be it's replacement instead if I don't go for it. It's about 50/50 right now. I don't ever post "which lens should I get" ... but I sure can't seem to decide this time around.

If I were you, I would skip either of them for now, especially when you are having so many reservations. That voice in your head is trying to tell you something. I would replace the 12-24 with the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 instead, it has stellar optics, goes wider than what you have, and matches any primes (including Zeiss) at all its focal lengths.

Hey ... more pics .. please!

D200 IR
14-24/2.8
Converted using Capture One with Sepia effect



The lens lives on my DX cameras.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
The flower shot is excellent and the first shot of the bridge is simply incredible....

I've got to start saving my pennies to get one of these lenses....

Thank you Kerry. Here's one more to potentially whet your NAS (I've shown this one a number of times and I rather like it):


D300
45 PC-E

TonyBeach wrote:

Thank you Kerry. Here's one more to potentially whet your NAS (I've shown this one a number of times and I rather like it):


You should like it. It too, is an incredible image, to my eyes anyway. It was the one that I saw that first peaked my interest in the PC lenses. I don't do architecture, so had no interest in them, until I saw this photo. That demonstrates how versatile they are, which is something I hadn't realized would work so well on a dslr. I almost regret buying the 24-70 instead of this lens now. I could have gotten by with my 28-70.....

This might be enough to make me get off my butt and try to earn a little extra money...

Hey Tony - I hate you right about now That PC-E lens is sooo cool!

I'm to the point where I'm trying to decide if I might want to part with my 200-400 (I have a 500VR anyway) in favor of a few of those lenses. You're killin' me!

Steve

TonyBeach wrote:
Now that I did the function alignment modification I'm looking forward to really putting the 24mm PC-E through it's paces the way this lens was meant to be used for dynamic landscapes. I think once you get over the high price, you will be very pleased with this lens.

Hey Tony,

Nice shots. Did you do the function alignment modification yourself? I've read about doing it with the Canon PC-E lenses and it looked pretty straight forward. I was just wondering if Nikon is the same, as I would like to modify mine. Thanks.

Terry

Pavel,

Excellent as usual. Nice stuff. One of these days I will bite the bullet and get one of thses lenses. My preference would be the 24mm version.


Cheers,
Andre

tkearney wrote:
Nice shots. Did you do the function alignment modification yourself? I've read about doing it with the Canon PC-E lenses and it looked pretty straight forward. I was just wondering if Nikon is the same, as I would like to modify mine. Thanks.

Terry


Thank you Terry.

Yes, I did it myself on the 24mm, but it is not possible on the 45mm (the internal ribbons are too short to rotate the shift plate 90°). It was a little hair raising on the 24mm and the ribbons are stretched to their limit (too much for comfort in my opinion). For those that say this is a cinch, it is not; and the lenses really do need a parts replacement to be suitable for modification; and the screws are really tight with small heads, which makes them prone to stripping.

I would also add that Nikon Service got in touch with me about the whole service fiasco I went through with them. They apologized and sent me a shipping label so I could send my lenses back at my leisure to have the modification done. I think I'll pass on the 24mm, but the 45mm is definitely going back to Nikon for the $126 modification.

Hey Tony -

What exactly does locking the tilt / shift function together do? I've never used one of these lenses, but it seems to me that they would be more versatile the way they are. Since you spent the money to have it done, I'm sure it was with good reason, so I was just wondering what the advantage was.

Well the truth of the matter is, that one needs six tilt/shift lenses in all. The three left as is and three with the planes changed. Yup. the shift corrects lines, puts them into parallel as they should be and the tilt throws the focus plane. I find that for most things having them are right angles is the way for me, but I've already found a few times where I really wanted both adjustments along the same plane.

Two for instances:
with them as from the factory, you can for example want to take a wide landscape vista. You want it sharp from front to back, but it's late in the day and breezy. So if you use f 16 you don't get enought dof and then it's all a mess because the flowers (or whatever) will get moved around into a blur with the long exposure times. So you set the lens wide open and then tilt the lens down to get the dof running horizontally towards the horizon. That give you tremendous dof along the plane you need ... and solves that problem. Then you can take three shots in quick sucession. One shifted to one extreme, then neutral and finally shifted to the other side. Stich them and you have a great panoramic landscape, in dim light at apparent dof of f 128 with no difraction and at shutter speeds of say 1/30th of a second which offsets the wind, rather than 1 second which would leave you with a mess.

Nothing like a T/S lens then. And for something like that you would want it as it is from the factory.

The opposite happened to me just on that walk. I could have really used a lens with the factory mod. I wanted to shoot a tall statue ( a work of art and really one of a kind - it is the grave of senator Edwards' son) It's seven feet tall so I wanted to shoot it so that it was not sloped away from me. That means using rise but in this case I wanted the focus to move from one point to a second point which was above it and to the back. So I could have added shift along the same plane .... but only if I had the mod done. At right angles there would be no point here. I tried it at f 16 btw ... but being so close to the front lower part ... the top was not even close in focus. Only tilt would achieve that. ... and at f 5.6 at that. But I had a choice of only one or the other correction. Either sufficient focus sharpness on both interesting parts or a fixed perspective. Bummer!

These lenses really are like gold, in the right circumstances.

Tony. Thanks for the suggestions on the lenses. I have had both the 80-200 Ed and the 70-200 VR but have sold both of them. Funny I liked the 80-200 better when I didn't need the softer bokeh of the VR or VR itself.
I found that the 70-200 was a good lens which I seemed to pack last always, unless it was a job I knew I'd need it for. So it went.
The reason I rarely took it with me was the fact that I tended to always use it at between 70-110 or so or at the other extreme at 200. Almost not a picture anywhere in between. So now that I'm shooting for myself only and trying to get into other forms of shooting where I have time aplenty ... I got rid of it after much musing. THe 60 along with the 200 f 4.0 are somehow more my style. I tend to like primes, and feel more comfortable with only them. Actually if I do buy another zoom in that range it would be the old push pull 80-200 which a friend has, and I like using best of all the tree models. The picture on FX is noticeably better in the corners with both 80-200's and I like the in hand handling better.

But right now I'm thinking that my absolutely perfect kit would be the 24 pc-e, the 45 pc-e the 60 micro (small and light - but kind of a duplicate length here) the 85 pc-e, the 100 micro and the 300 f 4.
Hmmm. I guess I better shut up and just wait it out and spend the dough.

I guess if I don't like the 24 pc-e ... I can blame all you guys!