Since Nikon is officially making sensors...

[Ger Bee]

Is there any reason they can't make their own full frame sensor?

............. they join the line of other manufacturers who have failed to make an FF sensor and now they are full flight on plan B.

There are yield problems with FF mostly, that and the chromatic aberrations can be wildly out of control and efforts to cure it gives the “chocolate box, painterly effect” so far no one has succeeded, Canon are closest.

 

[Ger Bee]

............... there are many on the Canon forum waiting to see if Canon will introduce a 1.5x and DX class wide and smaller tele lenses.

Traffic to the FF has been significant, the Canon system once tried, is impressive but there are probably as many who want the DX class lens system and are threatening to move to Nikon just for this.

So in reality it is beginning to be a stand off, those who have not left yet but threatening to move to FF from Nikon and those threatening to move to Nikon for 1.5x and DX.

My solution, after exhaustive investigations ---------------------------------------------

................... buy everything!!!! ;^)

 

[baruth]

II is this simple: Nikon doens't see money in this lens!

Larry,
It is supply and demand thing. Very few need the T/S lens and the
few do need it won't pay the price! ( the fewer the buyers the
more it would cost). Have ever looked in to a Ferrari sticker?

I'm not sure what it is, but the re-occurring excuse that often
pops up is the "few need it, it's too expensive" excuse. I've
heard it applied to IS, TS, and FF as reasons cited for Nikon to
not go in that direction or offer those things at one time or
another. Keep in mind that, unlike a Ferrari, these are tools that
help people make money and actually serve a practical purpose. And
in the meantime, Nikon (eventually) comes out with their own IS,
TS, and I would expect someday, FF.

By the way, I own the Canon 24mm TS-E and 45mm TS-E, and I'm
certainly not the only one. They aren't all that expensive,
considering what you get for your money and what they can do for
you. And they've both paid for themselves, anyway. But isn't it
nice that Canon let me decide if I wanted to pay the price for
them?

--
baruth

 

[Peter Phan]

It is this simple: Nikon doens't see money in this lens!

Maybe so. But they saw fit to make a Nikon 85mm PC (their version of TS). Why they stopped there and didn't go wider is anyone's guess, but one hypothesis is that the unusually large image circle required of a (wider-angle) lens that performs tilt and shift functions isn't compatible with Nikon's smaller lens mount. From personal experience, a 24mm, 45mm and a 90mm trio is the ideal offering, with the 24mm and 45mm being more popular and useful; the 85-90mm focal length being a bit on the long side for much utility in landscape, architecture, and sometimes even table-top photography. That's why I never got a 90mm. (And it even becomes more now with a 1.5x/1.6x digital conversion factor.) The 90mm is good for macro work, but macros are good for macro work, too, and at much less cost.

So if Nikon really was concerned about making money on PC lenses, they probably should have made a 24 or 45mm PC lens. An 85 PC micro is probably the least popular focal length for PC/TS, offering the most limited range of usage, and overlaps/competes with their micro offerings. So if the argument is that Nikon was concerned about making money, the 85 was probably not the best choice to minimize that concern. And the 45mm TS with a 2x teleconverter still gives you a 90mm with very good results.

As far as making money on such lenses, maybe Canon is just breaking even on each lens. Maybe they're even losing money on each lens! Who knows. But I guess they figure that it's a small price to pay to provide for their users and make their customers happy.

 

[LarryK]

By the way, I own the Canon 24mm TS-E and 45mm TS-E, and I'm
certainly not the only one. They aren't all that expensive,
considering what you get for your money and what they can do for
you. And they've both paid for themselves, anyway. But isn't it
nice that Canon let me decide if I wanted to pay the price for
them?

Peter,

That's one area where Canon is paying attention. Whenever I think about switching it's usually because of those two lenses. That 24 is a sweet piece of glass, I just wish that 45 had one more f-stop and a Nikon mount.

Somebody will eventually give Nikon cutomers what they need, I just hope it's Nikon, and I'm not in a rest home by then.

Larry

 

[LarryK]

An 85 PC
micro is probably the least popular focal length for PC/TS,
offering the most limited range of usage, and overlaps/competes
with their micro offerings.

Peter,

I do beg to differ with you on one item, the 85 is almost pefect for tabletop, where typically a little flatter perspective is preferred. There were some threads on the Galbraith forum that indicated the overall satisfaction with the 85PC, and I was surprised at how many find this lens absolutely essential, and it is a supremely sharp piece of glass.

Unfortunately at a pseudo 127.5mm it's too long to be of much use, and the 60mm micro is just not the same, although I'm forced to use it in many circumstances.

Larry

 

[Peter Phan]

Well, I did say, "and sometimes even [limiting for] table-top photography," especially now with the digital multiplier, as you've indicated. No argument about its sharpness, though.

But my point was that I disagreed with baruth's assertion that Nikon didn't make PC lenses because there wasn't any money in it. Obviously, they make an 85mm PC, and people do find it valuable!

Peter,
I do beg to differ with you on one item, the 85 is almost pefect
for tabletop, where typically a little flatter perspective is
preferred. There were some threads on the Galbraith forum that
indicated the overall satisfaction with the 85PC, and I was
surprised at how many find this lens absolutely essential, and it
is a supremely sharp piece of glass.

Unfortunately at a pseudo 127.5mm it's too long to be of much use,
and the 60mm micro is just not the same, although I'm forced to use
it in many circumstances.

Larry

 

[baruth]

Not to filibuster this subject, but do you guys ever used PS to correct the perspective? I don't have the need for this lens, but I have corrected the extreme perspective distorstion with PS and it does a rather decent job.

An 85 PC
micro is probably the least popular focal length for PC/TS,
offering the most limited range of usage, and overlaps/competes
with their micro offerings.

Peter,
I do beg to differ with you on one item, the 85 is almost pefect
for tabletop, where typically a little flatter perspective is
preferred. There were some threads on the Galbraith forum that
indicated the overall satisfaction with the 85PC, and I was
surprised at how many find this lens absolutely essential, and it
is a supremely sharp piece of glass.

Unfortunately at a pseudo 127.5mm it's too long to be of much use,
and the 60mm micro is just not the same, although I'm forced to use
it in many circumstances.

Larry

--
baruth

 

[LarryK]

Not to filibuster this subject, but do you guys ever used PS to
correct the perspective? I don't have the need for this lens, but I
have corrected the extreme perspective distorstion with PS and it
does a rather decent job.

I have used Photoshop since it was 1.0 Beta, and I use it all the time to correct poorly photographed images for distortion, and in the process the image is degraded unnecessarily. Why not start with best image and get the best results? Also, please note that Photoshop cannot adjust the focus plane in an image the way this lens can. It provides some of the functionality of a view camera.

This lens is not for everyone, but anyone that knows how to use it, and has a reason to use it, apreciates it.

Larry