35mm Shift lens: Canon? Minolta? Zeiss PC Distagon?

[stevemark]

For some architectural work i think about acquiring a f=35mm shift lens. I have no experience whatsoever with any of the "classical" 35mm shift lenses. Does it make sense to go for the rather expensive Zeiss C/Y PC Distagon 2.8/35mm, or is the corresponding Canon or Minolta comparable?

It's only about shifting; tilting is not necessary at all.

I'd be grateful for any information about any of the Canon, Minolta or Zeiss f=35mm shift lenses!

Stephan

[Himself]

35mm might be to narrow for architectural work. I have it, it's a briliant lens from all aspects but if I had a gig that involves the usage of a ts lens - inside the building or outside- I'd rent a 24 or 17mm. Canon TS of course.

[BurstMox]

The Arsat-N PCS 35/2.8 shift can be possibility. I don't know price of others lenses you are mentionning here, but you can find it for less than $200, and it's a decent lens. It has vigneting at extreme shift position.

http://pierretizien-photos.blogspot.fr/2016/04/arsat-35mm28-pcs-shift.html

[Lightshow]

The Nikkor is relatively inexpensive... ~$200 http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/PC_Nikkor/index1.htm

[hoanpham]

The Zuiko 35mm shift is good and very easy to use. I have MC version, but don't think they have non mc.
Contax 35mm shift has more stable design, may be better than zuiko, but heavier, costs many fold the zuiko and no significant better IQ.
Haven't use the nikkor 35mm.

Otherwise, nikkor 28-shift is also very good. Pentax 28-shift too, but the pentax is heavier, almost same mechanical as contax.

[thebbm]

I have the pc distagon but never use it on full frame, i sold my A7 few weeks after i get it and now i'm also selling the pc distagon.
I get a nex 6 now and other 35mm 2.8 normal lens ( sigma 30mm 2.8, zuiko 35mm f2.8 , contax 35mm 1.4)
I can make comparaison shoots, if you want tell me what

[barryreid]

I know that it's normal for people to recommend lenses much wider than a 35 for architecture, but one of the big benefits of this type of shift lens is the relatively natural perspective it gives. Even the Canon 45mm TS-E can be useful.

I have used three "35mm" shift lenses. The first and worst was a Mk 1 Canon TS-E 24 with a EF 1.4x converter Mk II. Second was an OM 35 shift and lastly a Contax PC - Distagon.

I had the Oly and the Zeiss at the same time and went out to Trafalgar Square in London to test them against each other on my A7r.

My thoughts are that the PC-D is a very good lens sharper but lower in contrast than the Olympus - these differences were clear but there isn't a huge amount in it.

The OM lens is nicer to use as it has a stop down button so you can compose and focus then push the button to stop down. The Olympus' shift mechanism is also much easier to use but is reputed to be less reliable.

There is also a noticeable difference in coverage/field of view but I'm damned if I can remember which of the two was "wider"

I'd quite like to try the latest Canon TS-E and 1.4x Mk III combo as it might just be best of all, based on some stuff I read on Luminous Landscape.

The link below may be of interest:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_shift/35mm_test1.html

[stevemark]

[stevemark]

[Koen Nhz]

Here is a good small test with the Canon TS 35 mm 1:2.8 SSC included, I also have this lens and think his conclusions are in line with my experience:
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/shootout-the-canon-fd-35mm-lenses/

I really like the rendering, colors, contrast and it's rather easy to use on a evf camera, even handheld.
But as this test shows it's not as sharp as some of the other FD lenses, for example my 24mm 1:2.8 SSC seems sharper at 100% view, probably because the TS needs much more complex optics, comparable with a much wider lens, or a larger format lens (there was a very interesting topic about this some time ago: http://forum.mflenses.com/lens-scaling-what-it-is-and-why-it-is-important-t73933.html)

I must admit I wasn't really looking for a t/s lens, but came across this one very cheap and mostly use it for tilt as a gimmick, but of course shift works really well, almost distortion free even at the extremes, but by then the corners really start to suffer on my A7 (could be partly due to the sensor stack), as you can see, even at this size:


DSC08084_1920px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

For that reason I'm not convinced it would be better than simply correct a non shifted image in PP with a sharper lens.
There is some LaCA as well, but not too pronounced to really bother me.

Here are some more samples, but mostly tilted: https://flic.kr/s/aHskvJPkZF and a lot more in this album, but they aren't tagged here, but you'll recordnize most of them: https://flic.kr/s/aHskyKAgT6

I also have the CZ 35mm 2.8 c/y (not the t/s one), but I haven't tested them against each other, I would guess contrast is comparable and the Zeiss would be sharper, but not by that much probably.
I could compare them if that would be interesting.

[stevemark]

[Koen Nhz]

I think you are right, but looking at the 16-9 test again (I couldn't figure out how to go to the next page before) I do think the Canon is probably closer to the Contax than to the other two lenses in image quality, but definitely not as sharp as the Zeiss.
My sample above isn't stopped down very far (f/4 - 5.6 perhaps) and +- at full shift.
It's also perfectly usable wide open, in contrast to the Olympus and Nikkor (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_shift/35mm_test4.html) those look quite horrible!
Also CA is quite low, just not non-existing and it might be a problem to remove automatically because software won't know how far you shifted, I haven't removed it in the picture above, that's an ooc jpg except for the resize.

[thebbm]

If you're looking for a pc distagon i'm selling one in very good condition from France

[stevemark]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Just use a normal lens and stitch multiple frames, you can then correct the perspective as much as you like in Photoshop.

[dnas]

Another option....
Since there are a variety of lenses mounts you mentioned, if you have an A7, then you can get a shift adapter, and use a variety of lenses with that adapter.

[Gerald]

The Zeiss Distagon 35mm-PC has an angular coverage of 83º, which is almost equal to that of a 24mm wide angle lens. Thus an alternative to the PC-Distagon 35mm would be to use a high-quality 24mm wide angle lens, like the Sigma Art 24mm F1.4, on a camera with high-density sensor like the Sony A7r II, and make a crop for the final image. The MTF measurements made by Roger Cicala in lensrental.com suggest that the cropped Sigma Art final image would be as good or better than the PC-Distagon.

[stevemark]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. With stitching, if you do it properly, you have no issues with errors and have a huge flexibility in how you can manipulate the FOV and perspective. Also, you can produce images of hundreds of MP.

Oh, and your comment about you earning while I spend is fatuous arrogant rhetoric, I have sold quite a few of my images, many of them were stitched.

I suggest you educate yourself about this subject, clearly your knowledge is very lacking.

Maybe you should just stick to pointless lens tests where you obsess about the corner performance wide open.

[Himself]

Let me see if I understood correctly: you make money with photography and want to shoot architecturally, inside of a medieval church with a 35mm?
Am I missing something?

[stevemark]

[stevemark]

[barryreid]

To further support the argument in favour of shift lenses, If you do shoot for design businesses in the 21st century the expectation is that some form of edit will be more or less instantly available.

You may also find yourself shooting with a client who has specific views in mind alongside you looking at a laptop or iPad, you can't really ask them to wait for you to stitch and correct.

I have, with my shift lenses gone on the morning of opening day of a just-about-complete-and-furnished building shot 40+ images all well corrected out of the box thanks to the lenses. Then made some quick selections from the jpegs to get them ready for an immediate press release.

In summary when you use shift lenses the process for using an image runs something like...

set camera up
Compose
shoot
Use

But using stitching...

Set camera up
Take multiple shots ensuring coverage
Go back to a PC
correct individual images for distortion
Stitch images (possibly introducing distortion)
Correct perspective and distortion
Use image

If you are shooting any reasonably complex building for an Architectural firm they will be looking for multiple angles and shots sometimes several per room and the time required both on site and in post starts to build quickly. There is also a risk of missing part of the area you need to stitch.

I'd also suggest another risk is that with multiple views to stitch and correct after you have left the building you may not be 100% clear on the actual perspective in the spaces by the end of the process. The architect probably will be however as he/she has been highly involved and has made many visits to the site during construction will be very aware of how it should look.

[stevemark]

@barryreid:

Thank you for this excellent clarification!

Stephan

[dnas]