Does anyone still use shift lenses?

L

L David Tomei

Well-known
Local time
11:04 PM
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
363
Several years ago I bought a beautiful Nikkor perspective control lens to do some architectural photography for my wife. I understand that they are functional only on slr cameras, but many on RFF use both rf and slr cameras. As it turns out, my p-c lens sits unused and unappreciated.

Even though digital processing provides quick perspective adjustments in an image, digital techniques still cannot perform the same way as a p-c lens.

Does anyone still use a p-c lens instead of digital processing and why?
 
I just sold my TS-E 24mm for Canon, I really like T&S lenses but its performance wasn't really good, especially with the 5DII 21 MP sensor.
I know I'll miss it, I love architecture shots...
Maybe someday I'll buy the mark II version.
 
I have never owned a shift lens for an SLR system, but I do use 4x5" camera and well - all my lenses "have shift". I indeed use this feature when photographing architecture - in particular with wider lenses. Of course - the 4x5" neg is so large that one could simply point and shoot and correct the the image in photoshop and still make large nice prints. However with 35mm format I can imagine that one may want to use shift lenses to minimize the post processing if larger prints are wanted. I would guess that people who shoot architecture for living use these kind of lenses with their DSLRs on regular basis ..
 
I was curious whether I was missing some great advantage of the p-c lens for 35mm cameras that would outweigh the fact that a rather expensive lens sits unused. I've seen debates on the various factors such as the much larger imaging circle and its use with cropped vs full frame sensors, for instance. I still recall using tilt easels to control perspective on prints. With PS and digital imaging, my Nikkor f/2.8 35mm P-C lens seems to be a genuine anachronism.
 
Rectilinear Nikkors

Rectilinear Nikkors

The P-C Nikkors are also optically different - they are recticlinear, not curvilinear. This leaves all straight lines straight, and I forget what was sacrificed in the design to achieve this. There was a thread here some months ago where it was explained how to tell a rectilinear lens photo from a "regular" wide angle: put a plastic ruler on a known-to-be-linear object and see if it bows or not.

I have a couple, and they are great with film. Oddly, the temptation is to overdo the shifting, and end up with upside-down keyholes.
 
I like my 24/3.5 PC-E

I like my 24/3.5 PC-E

I have a Nikkor 24mm/3.5 PC-E lens that I use often in landscape photography. I use the tilt to have a very deep depth of field. I don't think you can easily simulate this on a computer. I also like the shift as I can change the point of view without fiddling with the tripod.

I recommend renting a lens from one of the online shops first. Once you try it I think you will like it.

Cheers,
Gary
 
Since the actual image formed by the lens is somewhere around 40% larger in area compared with a conventional 35mm lens, the image quality (e.g. radial distortion, vignetting) when unshifted would be better. I used to hear comments that the Nikkor p-c lenses cost Nikon more to design and build than they could recover in limited sales. I think this lens probably deserves more appreciation than I'm giving at the moment.
 
telecentricity said:
I have a Nikkor 24mm/3.5 PC-E lens that I use often in landscape photography. I use the tilt to have a very deep depth of field. I don't think you can easily simulate this on a computer. I also like the shift as I can change the point of view without fiddling with the tripod.

I recommend renting a lens from one of the online shops first. Once you try it I think you will like it.

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...

Actually, I have used this lens on and off (mostly off recently) for 10 years on my F3 and D70. I'm searching for a reason to keep it or else find it a new home where it can be better appreciated, I suppose. I'm going to put it in the bag and take it out shooting tomorrow.
 
I have the original Canon FD 35mm/2.8 TS lens. I used to use it here and there, but it is now shelved.
 
I think that with digital capture and using special tripod mounts such as those from nodal ninja, the need for PC lenses is vastly reduced because you can just stitch images created using lenses with zero distortion. And often if you use the lens in portrait orientation and its wide enough such as the Zeiss 21/4.5 C-Biogon, then you can keep the film plane vertical so you get zero converging verticals too. Unless of course you're looking at a very high subject or are very close.
 
If mamiya did a shift lens for the mamiya 7, I would buy it NOW. Out of all the lens omn my wish like (which is nowm quite small) this is the lens, 60mm would be ideal. But there no hope of that happening.
 
Correcting in photoshop requires manufacturing pixels similar to what is there. Therefore there is a quality loss.

Further when you use a shift lens, some foreground is lost to gain image height.

I use my R system shift lenses on Nikon by replacing the mount with Leitax. Very slick solution. I made a replacement null reading shim from plastic to replace the the steel one between between the mount and lens. .032 plastic. You can leave it off and the lens focuses past infinity or turn the cam inward which limits lens functionality. I used it for a while without, but tired of hunting infinity and made the plastic substitutes for both 28 and 35.
 
Last edited:
I made a pretty good name for myself locally as an architectural specialist, and at the time (back in the 80s) I used the 24mm Olympus F3.5 PC, which Marty Forscher adapted for me to Nikon F mount. Also the 28mm F3.5 PC Nikkor, and the 35mm F2.8 PC Nikkor. I used Kodachrome 25 and Fuji Velvia, that was it. It was a fun time, made some money, had alot of Architect friends at the time, and helped them win quite a few AIA awards, too.
 
Last edited:
I don't (yet), but most of the wedding photographers I know have and use one (or a lensbaby of some sort). It is quite the fad these days. I have been noticing more and more magazine photography utilizing the thin slice of focus that can be attained with a tilt shift lens.

I'd like to get one to correct perspective, but, hey, to each his own.
 
I have the 35mm and 28mm PC-Nikkors. I like them for not only keeping verticals vertical for buildings, but also for obtaining correct perspective in some outdoor scenic shots, where it would otherwise be necessary to tilt the camera upwards to get in the top of a mountain, tree, etc. I think you lose some of the grandeur if you have to do that. They work best with film.

Digital is another story. I've tested them on the D300. The problem is that the angle of acceptance of the pixel sites seems pretty limited. If I shift more than about 5 to 7mm, the image darkens a lot faster than it would on film (where it doesn't darken much at all). The PC lens is still useful on digital, but I have to accept a more limited range of movement.

My 28mm PC is sharp as heck, even out to the outer range of the image circle.
 
I'm still keeping my 28 PC 3.5 Nikkor. I've made a lot of very nice architectural interior images with it on my F3. Grid screen E helps with alignment too.
 
I used to use a shift lens on occasion with my Pentax 67II. Sold both the camera and lens and I now have a 28mm PC Nikkor lens that I got to use on my D700. I sold the D700 but still have a D300 a FE2 and a Nikon F. I have some plans to use it sometime before long. Jim
 
My 24 and 90 TSE are used almost weekly. I do a lot of work for interior designers and architects using the 24 and use the 90 for products.
 
I bought a D700 – the start of my Nikon system – simply for their 85mm PC-E lens, which I use regularly for jewellery and small product photography. It occasionally goes out to play, but the vast amount of thinking needed when using it can be exhausting.

I picked up the Nikkor 35/2.8 PC lens in one of those I-can't-afford-to-not-buy-it sales on a web forum. It doesn't get used much, but it's brilliant on my GH1, where all of the metering and exposure complexity just goes away. I'm considering using it on a whirlwind photo trip to New York soon, so I'll be testing it with a film F100 for the first time in a couple of days.

Last fall I bought a Fujifilm GX680iii, which is a massive medium format SLR with swing and tilt movements on its front standard. (It makes a Mamiya RB/RZ look like a happysnaps.) When I want to pound image quality into an ultra-fine dust, that's the camera that I always pick.
 
I've never used a PC lens on an SLR but I did buy a 4x5 view camera to have the option of doing just that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom