ian_watt3

<p>I have had this lens for over a year now and during that time its been very much a love hate relationship. Initially I thought the lens was fabulous and took me back to my days of large format photography. Then the rotating mechanism broke and Nikon took 4 weeks to fix it and when it returned its was sloppy so had to go and be tightened. Since then I have grown to love it again until on some crucial shots overseas I got the focusing totally wrong, initially I thought the tilt had moved but after a lot of experimenting and research discovered the lens suffers from a degree of field curvature that I find very difficult to predict. Even working on a tripod at f11 and bracketing the focus I still get areas that are soft. If I'm working with architecture for some reason its less of a problem, the worse situation is if I'm working in a natural landscape with mature trees filling the skyline and need max. depth of field I can end up with some of the trees soft on the top edges and this is without shift! I recently tested this lens against the old 28mm AIS Nikon and as expected the old lens overall was just a tad softer but everything was sharp. So I would be interested to see a diagram of the field curvature characteristics of this lens or some good advise on getting more reliable results with focusing. I've tried focusing further away which can help but an absolute hairs breath can make a difference with the results (very frustrating). The Camera is a D800 and I can't really use live view when I'm working out in bright light, also 70% of my work involves tall trees in the picture </p>

<p>Thanks for the link, very informative. I'm inclined to think this lens is more trouble than its worth after reading that. I would agree with the writer that superb results can be had especially in portrait. I wonder if the 28mm f2.8 AIS would make life simpler. </p>

<p>I have the 28G on a D800 and when new did some test shots with it. The results on the whole were excellent. The much publicised weakness of this lens is the zone nearing the edge at certain apertures depending on focus. I managed to produce "soft" results setting at f5.6 and focusing using AF at the cameras af's extremes left and right about 15 feet from the subject. When using the AF centrally all results were great/acceptable at every aperture. I presume this is the lens and not the camera (i am aware of the camera's focusing fault issue) because I did the same test with 3 other different nikon wide angles.<br>

So I would be interested to know how best to embrace and work round this small issue. For street photography I would set the camera's focusing on auto and continuous and fire away keeping in the back of my mind the focus spots and aperture and where the lens may fall down but would that mean trying to keep the focus central? What if I have subjects either side of the centre in low light? I have the 24-70 and comparing the 2 optically there is not much in it (except the zoom doesn't have this zone issue) , the difference being I can carry the 28 around all day long. Incidentally I nearly bought the 28 f2.8 AIS but felt I would miss AF. Optical quality and weight were the main criteria.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link I've been looking for a review of the voigtlander for ages. I had read Ming's reviews of his other wides but not that one. I have looked at all the Nikon options and eliminated all except the old faithful 28 AIS (I need to read a review with this on a D800) and the new 28G. </p>

<p>Wide angle wanted low in weight high in quality<br>

I've read great things about the 28mm AIS and wondered how it compared to the Voigtlander and the Zeiss 28mm on a D800E. The 16-35 is an outside option and scores on versatility but its weight and size are a disadvantage for world travel. I am guessing the 16-35 at 28 and an optimum aperture is as good or better than the others mentioned but its performance at 35 seems a let down. (If 35mm performance is poor then I wouldn't want it), if this is correct then its probably better to have a prime with manual focus and slow down a little but which one? </p>

<p>I am interested in getting a book that covers only the essentials from RAW to ready to print. I find some of the books available have huge amounts of content that you could spent your life wading through. Like many photographers I want to do a minimal amount of editing but produce a print of the highest possible quality.<br>

I guess its down to personal taste but a book aimed at the landscape photographer without too many frills is what I'm looking for.</p>

 

<p>Thank you for the feedback. For the most basic but essential edits (hdr, white balance, exposure) I thought I could get away with View NX2 then save to tiff and carry on in photoshop. I will explore the Capture route as ultimately I am sure this will give me the best results. When you save the edited NEF as a tiff or jpeg should it look identical on the screen to the NEF when they are next to each other or does it depend how much altering has been done?</p>

<p>I do all my edits in photoshop however I feel I could get better results if I started some images off in View NX2 for a few simple global changes then finish off in photoshop. I would be interested to know if anyone practices this method with success. My question is, to transfer the image from NX2 to photoshop means saving to jpeg or tiff in Nikon rgb. Is this a good way to work? I want the finished result to be a sRGB jpeg. I have played around with editing with Nikon software and the results look different to photoshop and in some ways better but I do need photoshop for web work and printing, so whatever way I go I have to use photoshop. So I am concerned that saving, opening and closing jpegs is bad practice. I use a D7000 and take RAWS and jpegs depending on the subject. </p>

<p>Horizontal pan/shift not such a problem but its still too slack. No problem with tilt. The lens is less than 6 mths old with 5 weeks already wasted at Nikon repair.</p>

<p>I have the 24mm and the 45mm PC-E lenses. The 45 mm is perfect in all its movements. The 24 mm is fine on the tilts but on shift is very sloppy. Looking at the lens closely there is perhaps at least 0.5mm of play between the 2 faces of the shift movement. There is none on the 45mm. This means that with the lock screw released the lens just drops to the bottom of the shift movement. You have to turn the lock screw more than 1 turn before it begins to do anything.<br>

There are 2 problems with this 1. Its makes locking much more difficult 2. Setting the shift needs 2 hands one on each of the adjustment/lock knobs making use off the tripod very difficult and on the tripod more of a chore. 95% its used on a tripod.<br>

The lens has been back to Nikon 2 times. The first because the rotation failed and while it was there I asked them to sort out this other issue. The second because they failed to sort this issue and said they would however on return it was the same.<br>

I would like to know if the excessive play on the shift movement is acceptable and normal on a 24mm as I have none to compare it with, only the 45mm which is perfect. I know they fit a different lock screw on the 24mm which makes locking more fiddly but thats ok by me, its just a question of if the free play is within Nikons tolerances and if so its something you live with or try to get sorted. <br>

</p>

<p>Thanks for that. Bellows is something I will investigate. I think for minimum fuss at 1:1 then the 105mm is king. For certain subjects up to 1:2 then the 85mm pc could be a solution giving a little more flexibility at a reasonable distance, but its difficult to justify unless its going to bring in an income or could be used for other applications. The 45mm I agree is too close at 1:2 for nature subjects but would be more use in the field. There is also the option of hiring. Thanks again for the feedback its been very helpful.</p>

<p>The main reason for getting a 45mm pc would be for landscape and buildings but these lenses are also great for product shots in the studio hence the ability to do 1:2.<br>

Thinking along those lines I wondered if going a step further with a tube would allow more control over the plane of focus thus enabling you to do things that would only be possible with LF. In theory it was an idea but I guess in practice there are too many hurdles to overcome. Thanks for your feedback on this I suspected as much.</p>

<p>I would be very interested to know what its like using the 45 or longer pc lens with tubes to<br>

get near to life size. Does it work like a dream or a complete nightmare. Focusing, metering<br>

and even composing. I use the 105 micro a lot mainly indoors on a tripod for flora and fauna<br>

and wondered if controlling the depth of field would be a help. I have used tubes in the past and hated them <br>

because of the fixed focusing distance and having to continually move the camera. I didn't have the luxury of a<br>

rack. </p>

 

<p>Thanks for the response. Please could you explain in what circumstance/scenario you would want to use tilt with rise and fall, (if I understand correctly this is what the Nikon lens will not do). I haven't used LF for some years so am a little rusty but I thought that tilt and rise would be most useful in some landscape shots.</p>

<p>I am thinking of getting maybe the 45mm PC lens. What are the practical limitations this lens has over the canon and how does it play out when in the field. There is also the Schneider to consider which I know has all the movements in any combination at a price. It would be principally used on a D700 for landscapes where control of depth of field and correction would be required. Also in the studio in close up situations for similar reasons.</p>

<p>This probably seems like a daft question but I would be interested to hear of any tips on this....<br>

I am using a hoya pro polarising filter 77mm the one with the very thin ring on the nikon 24-70. I have had 2 problems with it. <br>

1 I got the filter stuck on the lens and couldn't get it off until I got back to base. Not good as it curtailed my shoot.<br>

2. Trying to avoid problem number 1. I had it on too loose and it fell off onto the volcanic rocks at my feet.<br>

I was lucky it only sustained a tiny scratch.</p>

 

<p>I will post the RAW files. What is the best way to do this?</p>

<p>@Jose... Thanks for the tips and links, I had not read those articles. Its all a little clearer now. I'll change some of the settings on the camera and play around with the exposure and see how I get on.</p>

<p>@Jose-banding looks similar in each photo in that it follows an arc in the steps of gradations in the sky and only occurs when using a wide lens.<br>

Its at its worse when shooting a sea scape with the sun just below the horizon and a clear blue sky above. </p>

<p>I hope this answers.....<br>

lossless compressed mode<br>

14 bit<br>

ACR <br>

Adobe RGB 16BIT<br>

Saved as a tiff 16 bit<br>

display....I have seen the image on 4 displays including iMacs all show it the same <br>

and on a A3 print<br>

thanks for all the help on this</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11894832<br>

camera is set to Auto D lighting, and standard or sometimes neutral <br>

Banding arc is much less visible on a raw taken through photoshop <br>

and converted to a jpeg see link BUT if you look closely there is still banding<br>

and rest assured it will show on a print</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As a follow on from my earlier post I have had to start a new one because for some reason I couldn't get it to accept my reply.<br /> So as a sum up I can say with 99% certainty that the bands of noise arcing across the sky originate in camera regardless of the setting rgb, raw or otherwise. It only occurs when and I'm guessing here, the atmospheric conditions give rise to high amounts of blue. I'm surprised no one else has experienced it as I have witnessed this phenomena on TV programmes showing sunsets where there is a strong gradation from the yellows to the blues of the upper atmosphere.<br /> What I don't know is if my Nikon camera is unique in failing in these conditions and how I cure it quickly and easily in photoshop.<br /> see link to photo<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/11893191</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Its the arc banding that is giving me trouble. Camera is set to default more or less and set on neutral, rgb makes no difference. There is in my opinion nothing I can do in camera that will cure this, furthermore it is definitely originating in camera and shows on prints big time. Editing a 16bit raw does not cure it either. It needs some very clever editing skills to sweep it away and leave nothing but clean graduated blue skies</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>As a follow on from my earlier post I have had to start a new one because for some reason I couldn't get it to accept my reply.<br /> So as a sum up I can say with 99% certainty that the bands of noise arcing across the sky originate in camera regardless of the setting rgb, raw or otherwise. It only occurs when and I'm guessing here, the atmospheric conditions give rise to high amounts of blue. I'm surprised no one else has experienced it as I have witnessed this phenomena on TV programmes showing sunsets where there is a strong gradation from the yellows to the blues of the upper atmosphere.<br /> What I don't know is if my Nikon camera is unique in failing in these conditions and how I cure it quickly and easily in photoshop.<br /> see link to photo<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/11893191</p>

<p><strong><em>Camera is set to highest possible quality jpegs and I also take raws at the same time</em></strong></p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11893191<br>

camera set on... A priority...24-70 lens though it makes little difference..uv filter again it seems to make little difference.<br>

f22 at 1/15 iso200 though again I can get this result with other settings etc<br>

I hope you can find the photo from the link</p>