![]() Like Tony, I most generally use the tilt and shift aligned so that I can use the tilt for the ground plane and the shift to correct vertical perspective. I also have a Kiev 35mm which mechanically slides the shift along the tilt hinge, so it can't be adjusted at all. I have an old 65mm Hartblei super-rotator (originally in Canon mount, switched to Nikon with much argument in which they claimed that I couldn't possible fine-tune the mount alignment and I asserted that it couldn't possibly matter for a tilt-shift lens - they were kind enough to relent) which has independent axes, although annoyingly the detents don't line up with shift and tilt in my preferred direction. įor the record, Nikon's inability (shared by the older Canon lenses) to make an in-the-field choice about the relationship between tilt and shift annoys me as well, and almost pushed me to the 24mm Samyang. That said, I'd buy the 24 if I could come even halfway to justifying the extravagance. I figure if Canon could do it, Nikon ought to have been able to also. Though I think Nikon could have done a little better and made their current lenses more flexible, I don't find the limitation particularly annoying except in principle. If I were not eagerly anticipating busting my lens budget soon on a 200-500 zoom, I'd be lusting after that 24, which would sit very nicely on a DX body! I confess to a weakness for shifting lenses. On that, I rarely use the shift (though it makes a pretty nice panorama), but find the tilt useful for perspective control. I also have the older D version of the 85/2.8 tilt shift lens, which I got mainly for macro work (that's an excuse of course. In fact, I like it so much that I use it as the normal lens on my DX digital camera, despite the hassle of preset aperture. I've long had one of the old 35/2.8 shift lenses from film days, and it is very nice for correcting perspective, and also for eliminating one's shadow from directly lit scenes, and removing oneself from windows and mirrors. But Nikon is determine to have its pound of flesh, I meant $400. I actually don't think it need to be mechanically very complicated to preserve all functions of the lens while letting the angle between tilt and shift be adjustable on the fly over a 90 degree range, which is all you need. There are also third party tilt-shift lenses which cost 1/2 as much as Nikon's TC-E lenses, and which lets you adjust the relative orientations of the two planes on the fly. Furthermore, you have to send the lens back for another $400 hit each time when you want to adjust the angle.Ĭanon doesn't charge you anything for doing this because it is a built-in feature of the lens. This is probably most safely done by Nikon, who will charge you $400 for the privilege, or so I was told by several people who bitched extensively about it. AS Shun indicated, You have to disassemble the lens to change the orientation of the plane of shift with respect to the plane of tilt. You can't hold the plane of shift fixed while changing the plane of tilt, at least not on the fly. However, the plane in which you can tilt is fixed with respect the plane in which you can shift. You can also rotate the lens while it is on the camera so the plane of the shift lines up with whatever object you want to photograph. Yes, on the Nikon lens you can shift and tilt at the same time. The other is tilt, where you pitch or yaw the optical elements so the central axis of the optical element train is no longer perpendicular to the plan of the sensor or film. One is shift, where you translate the entire optical element train perpendicularly to the long axis of the lens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |