Digital BW, The Print

Well, it wasn't cheap, but I needed the shift, and for that it was a 
bargain. The alternative wasn't another 35mm lens but a larger camera 
with movements, which would have been far slower and trickier to use.

But the lens was a better performer than the wider aperture Olympus 28mm 
I also had (which was usually the alternative, rather than a 35mm for 
taking similar scenes) For the 35mm shift, cost and the slight 
inconvenience of manual operation, which with the OM was very easy to 
do, were the only things you lost on. Optically it was fine, and pretty 
well distortion free - actually I hardly knew what distortion was when I 
used OM lenses, the only one I had noticeable distortion was the 20mm. 
I've been rather less impressed with Nikon on this score, but then I 
have been using zooms rather than prime lenses.

I think tilt isn't often needed with 35mm, really only if you want to 
deliberately make use of limited depth of field by shooting wide open. 
So yet another thing that Olympus really got right.

But for digital cameras, it is really a matter of buying lenses made for 
them for best results - and I think Nikon are probably sensible to stick 
with their 18x24 or whatever sensors.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Paul Roark wrote:

>Peter,
>
>  
>
>>I think your criticism is simply of the particular Canon shift lens you
>>own,
>>    
>>
>
>The fact that the lens is both a shift and tilt exacerbates the problems.
>It suffers from the wider image circle as well as the greater rear element
>to film distance (more radical retro-focus design).
>
>  
>
>>and unfair in that you are talking of using it for something it was
>>not designed for.
>>    
>>
>
>I have owned 5 Canon tilt shift lenses, all of which were for film cameras.
>I love what then can do, but optically, the wide angle ones are just not up
>to the standards I expect of good 35 mm lenses.
>
>  
>
>>For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm on
>>an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent performer, sharp into the
>>corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't fit on my Nikon.
>>    
>>
>
>The shift-only lenses only have half the problems of the tilt-shift.
>
>But, to get equal quality from a larger image circle, it takes a better,
>more expensive lens.  I'll bet you paid a premium for that lens.
>
>
>  
>
>>There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show the 'sweet spot'
>>argument is a good one,
>>    
>>
>
>The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is going to be better than
>it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, a designer could make a better
>lens all the way to the edge if the circle could be smaller.  It's a
>trade-off.  More money, of course, can allow them to make great retro-focus
>lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost a bundle.  Cost is a
>huge factor.
>
>I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is about as good as the new
>Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 times the cost.
>
>  
>
>>However the main point of some of the reviews is that some lenses
>>designed for film are not capable of getting the best out of some
>>digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is true of some very
>>expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens designers do usually
>>now claim to be designing for digital, and this does seem to mean
>>something, not just marketing talk.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to design great
>>wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan of some of these, with
>>a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well as an 'interesting'
>>35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit digital cameras.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Exactly, in addition to the greater need for anti-reflection coating on the
>rear element, I assume you've seen the un-processed wide angle shots on the
>Epson Leica copy.  They are outrageous.  The light fall-off is terrible.
>The obtuse angle of the light that the non-retro-focus (outstanding) Leica
>or Cosina lenses result in produces a huge problem.  While raw processing
>can take care of it, in part, this is yet another factor that robs our very
>scarce dynamic range.  Until there is a major advance in digital sensors,
>symmetric wide angles are probably not serious contenders, which means those
>who buy these digital Leicas for their great wide angles may be
>disappointed.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com 
>
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>