Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G: Replacement for the 24 TS-E?

Started Oct 25, 2008 | Discussions thread
wimg Regular Member • Posts: 155
Re: OK, here is an Example

cbnphoto wrote:

Sigh. It's a mechanical crop. There is nothing more to it than that.
By what you have written you seem to not be able to see the principle
on which a shift lens works. Yes you move the optical axis - no-one
is denying that. However that is the same as cropping from a larger
image circle
. Exactly the same. No ifs, no buts. That's what a shift
lens does mechanically.

Ok, I decided to get out paper and trigonometry bits and pieces, played some, did some calculations, and I apologize unreservedly. You're right.

Looks like I misled myself, mainly because I like to fill my frames completely with my subjects. And I rarely if ever use shift, only tilt.

I think the images demonstrate clearly that the result is the same
(the only difference being the minor differences due to the slightly
different barrel distortion on each lens). There are none of the
things you claimed in your last posting. Nor does it require
"pointing the camera at the ground" as you suggested.This is a false
assumption and I have a sneaking suspicion that you have based your
remark on the optical illusion one gets from shooting architecture
with extreme shift whereby buildings appear to be wider at the top
and appear to have diverging sides towards the top - exactly what you
would get by pointing a lens downwards.

That's exactly what I meant and this is something I did in the past, in my analog days.

Of course it does. So you are willing to now state that I am not
"wrong"? Good. I'll take that as a "yes"!

As I said higher up: yes :).

  • the Nikon 14-24 would not only be able to replicate the full shift

of the TS-E (11mm) but could give an equivalent shift of nearly 13mm
at 14mm FL. Given the low colour fringing and excellent sharpness, it
sounds like it would be a much better solution (the only downside
being less resolution in the final image - I make it about 7MP, which
is still good enough for magazine size images).

  • It's a shame Canon don't revamp their entire WA line-up - then we

wouldn't have to look at using adapted 3rd party lenses... sigh.

I'll update the web page with full results soon.

I'd honestly still have a look at the 16-35 II if I were you, or at least compare the 16-35 II and the 14-24 Nikon before committing yourself. If KR says a 5D + 16-35 II is sharper than a D3 or D700 with 14-24, there may well be something in this.

BTW, I have my 17-40 and TS-E 24 with me this week, so weather permitting I'll go and experiment a little along your line of thought myself.

Kind regards, Wim

P.S.: only quoted some bits, the more significant ones I think

 wimg's gear list:wimg's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM +32 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow