Hi Russ,
I think we're in violent agreement - for the money it's pretty reasonable if you learn it properly. I was really thinking about the MF switchers, of which I am one.
As a group to generalise horribly, we tended to be running several systems: a MF back with both SLR and technical style bodies, glass for both. Then an SLR so we could shoot in lower light and do tracking focus and use telephotos. Then often an M9 since we all love the CCD/ no AA filter look and we like good glass. Then often a MFT for walk around. That describes so many people I know. But a lot of us have switched or are thinking of it. We'll give up the extra 20 or 40mp in exchange for the great IQ of the D800 but we find the glass confusing because we're kinda used to paying whatever it costs for glass that does the job right.
IMHO the 24 PC-E is good value, useful, fun even - but it doesn't do the job right. By which I mean that it doesn't give predictable, repeatable, non-diffraction limited corner to corner edge to edge sharpness. At this price it would be surprising if it did. But what I am pointing out is that
a) for MF switchers who want to know if it'll 'cut the mustard' to their standards, regardless of price, it won't
b) if someone made a lens that did, I think quite a lot of people would buy it.
There is a problem here. Phase One announced and then retracted their T/S lens for the AF/D and DF bodies. I had an earlier amole as a trialer from Phase and it belonged in Battersea Dogs' Home. I also had the older Hartblei on which it was based and that was fuzzy at the edges bit awesome otherwise. Leica can't get their S version out the door. So it is clear that manufacturers have real technical problems here. BUT (and I've never tried one but people say they're great) Canon have done it.
On my Cambo with Schneider with MF back, I could set aperture at F16 and hyper focal at 5 metres and everything from the grass under the tripod to the moon would be in focus, everywhere. Amazing. Amazingly expensive. And I would pay the same price to be able to do this on the D800 because, having seen what it can do when fronted by a converted Leica 50R Cron, or my Zeiss 100mm F2 Planar, or even the 85mm f1.8G, I want to see that level of performance from a PC lens. ANd as I say, I would pay, through the nose and every other orifice, for the privilege!
EDIT: I forgot to say that MF switchers aren' really doing it for the price: the value of their gear has dropped like the proverbial since the D800 ;-( but many of them like the form factor, convenience, weight, flexibility and system consolidation aspects of the switch...
I don't agree with your conclusion. Price and performance are all relative and you're comparing to the very top end of the Tilt/Shift market. The 24mm PC-e is absolutely "good enough" for the D800 in my view, and especially for this price point in the market. If you think you need a £5k lens then you also need to spend £20k plus on a MF back because if Nikon launch a £5k Tilt Shift lens then a handful of people will buy it and Nikon won't make any money. I'm very happy with the results I get from it, though I have to admit to loving the 45mm PC-e more.
--
Gallery:
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/ 
