Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Tilt/Shift vs. conventional wide angle

  1. #1
    Downrigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Utah and the Adirondacks
    Posts
    1,678
    Real Name
    Mark

    Tilt/Shift vs. conventional wide angle

    I'm using a loaner Nikon PCE-24mm f3.5 tilt and shift and kinda enjoying it. I had a 4x5 field camera before so have some feel for using the tilt shift feature. I like staightening the tall stuff (tall trees, mountains) with up-shift, pulling my depth of field to my feet with down-shift and forward tilt, etc.

    I need (want) a wide angle lens for landscapes, (shortest presently is my old 35-70 AF) and have tried out the Zeiss ZF2 21mm which is does just beautifully. Then there's the Nikon 16-35 wide zoom with VR which is supposed to be pretty good and much less expensive than either the PCE-24mm or the (lovely) Zeiss.

    Anyone have thoughts on how they'd sort out this choice here? The PCE is a lot of work (but fun) to use for it's useful effects, but can be shot straight on like a conventional (and pretty good) 24mm prime.

    Maybe I should just flip a coin a couple times...

    Thanks all

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    396
    Real Name
    Yes

    Re: Tilt/Shift vs. conventional wide angle

    For most photography I use my wide zooms ( 12-24, 17 - 40). Occasionally the 24mm Tilt and Shift for jobs where is does a better job. The tilt of course can be simulated but not duplicated by post processing, and the shift duplicated by cropping a wider image , or correcting a tilted image, but with loss of resolution. A wide zoom is much more use so I carry it more often (there is a limit to the amount of gear one can carry) than my shift lens.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •