|
eosslr Registered: Mar 29, 2007 Total Posts: 418 Country: United States |
ok, so after playing with a couple of canon tilt/shifts, i became convinced i want to try something else (note: did not try the mk2 versions yet, but don't have high expectations). call it itchy hands... |
|
erichard Registered: Nov 27, 2005 Total Posts: 554 Country: United States |
I had the same intent. It's not cheap. I chose a second hand 40 cf, as it is their widest, is sharp, has little distortion, and has the Zeiss look. The earlier versions are not as good optically, and the later IF version, while a smidgeon sharper, has significant distortion and is 3-4 times as expensive (CFE nonIF version is not optically better than the CF version). The CF is plenty sharp. It is however a hefty lens. The Mirex adapter has some limits on the weight of the lens (ie. they don't recommend lenses over 100mm) because the tilt mechanism is held in place only by a friction screw (which is tiny). I turn the mirex upside down to avoid slipping issues if I'm not using the tilt mechanism. ![]() It's worth it because it has the level built in and you basically can set up the tripod and level the ball head extremely fast (rotates on top of the ball, rather than under the ball). And the rail is indexed, so you can record nodal points for each lens and then set up extremely fast. Here is a near 360 I took with that setup on a 5DII in New Orleans. When I say fast, this picture took probably <10 minutes including unfolding the tripod, etc. Note the Zeiss look (you can zoom in on the picture on this Gigapan hosting site: http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=8635f9c7fe6638692e9baedbc88afc46 |
|
roschko Registered: Aug 11, 2008 Total Posts: 53 Country: Austria |
I had to made the same decision few days ago. |
|
erichard Registered: Nov 27, 2005 Total Posts: 554 Country: United States |
roschko wrote: |
|
Doug Ball Registered: Jul 20, 2007 Total Posts: 148 Country: Canada |
I would try the new 17 TS-E or the 24 TS-E first. I think you would be very surprised. In fact I would love to see a comparison between the new mark ll's and what you are suggesting above. |
|
eosslr Registered: Mar 29, 2007 Total Posts: 418 Country: United States |
i would too ;-) but considering i don't have either at the moment.... |
|
brucemuir Registered: Dec 24, 2008 Total Posts: 3239 Country: United States |
eRichard, |
|
Doug Ball Registered: Jul 20, 2007 Total Posts: 148 Country: Canada |
The lens is relatively distortion free. You stitch by shifting the lens not by pano rotating. |
|
eosslr Registered: Mar 29, 2007 Total Posts: 418 Country: United States |
except when you do 360, then shifting alone doesn't cut it... |
|
Doug Ball Registered: Jul 20, 2007 Total Posts: 148 Country: Canada |
No |
|
erichard Registered: Nov 27, 2005 Total Posts: 554 Country: United States |
brucemuir wrote: |
|
brucemuir Registered: Dec 24, 2008 Total Posts: 3239 Country: United States |
eRichrd, |