El_Pickerel said:
No real time to talk about it, but for what it's worth here's the one shot I've had time to put up from my new-to-me 45mm PC-E

http://www.flickr.com/photos/el_pickerel/8238522896/in/photostream

That is what I'm looking for! Thanks for the example. How much working distance did you need to get the house in frame?

rortmanns said:
Of those mentioned the 45PC-E is my favourite before I got it the 24PC-E was my favourite. They are both superb, but they are not the sharpest lenses out there, particularly tilted or shifted, which is their purpose. The 14-24 is just fabulous, if you can use perspective correction in software it will serve you well, it's also probably best for interiors which would be a pain with PC-E lenses, hey really need a tripod but for max sharpness you'll use a tripod anyway. Forget the 16-35, I have it and bought it only coz I wanted to use filters on the 14-24 but couldn't, it's kind of OK but not stellar and not suitable for your enlargements. If you need really wide in the future get the Zeiss 15, 18 or 21.

My recommendation, get the 14-24 and wait for the Samyang 24TS (tilt shift) before committing to Nikon. If you really need a TS, the 24 is very nice but soft in corners.

I had not seen the Samyang 24TS was out there (soon). That creates and interesting opportunity. I would be shooting on a tripod at F8-f11, f16 if had to be for DOF. More concerned getting all the aspects in focus more than absolute sharpness. All the end uses I know it will be fine. Even on the larger prints where the mounting on plastic (that can be rolled up) will inherently be unable to show pin-point sharpness.

I hear the sentiment on the 14-24 vs the 16-35vr. The 16-35 would serve as my all-around purpose wide angle lens for event photography and very little commercial if any. The VR for the event stuff I do (handheld-little if any flash) gives enough leeway for hand held shots that the compromise is probably worth it. Also having the protective filter is almost a must for me in those situations. I bang stuff up bad.

Then again, with that Samyang TS and depending on the final price, I may just keep using my D300 (upgrade it at some point) and 12-24 for event as I have been doing and go to the 14-24mm. Grumble, and I thought I almost had this one figured out.

No real time to talk about it, but for what it's worth here's the one shot I've had time to put up from my new-to-me 45mm PC-E

http://www.flickr.com/photos/el_pickerel/8238522896/in/photostream

@ TTJ...the fan blades are 24 years old and sag. In the other shot, no question about the distortion one gets when shooting wide. What is happening, the brain in looking at a photo does not correct for the distortion. If one actually looks at the lamp, or shoots from the same angle straight on to the lamp, the same shape occurs. It was IMO a function of the low angle chosen for the special effect in the shot which was done for a purpose. It is not what I would call an architectural shot.

The "House for sale" shots are just for the realtor to do an online tour. Again, not a commercial architectural shot. But, the lenses are both sharp at least when blown up to immense sizes they look sharp to me. I will see if I can upload to Flickr a full size so we can look at them for clarity.

Of those mentioned the 45PC-E is my favourite before I got it the 24PC-E was my favourite. They are both superb, but they are not the sharpest lenses out there, particularly tilted or shifted, which is their purpose. The 14-24 is just fabulous, if you can use perspective correction in software it will serve you well, it's also probably best for interiors which would be a pain with PC-E lenses, hey really need a tripod but for max sharpness you'll use a tripod anyway. Forget the 16-35, I have it and bought it only coz I wanted to use filters on the 14-24 but couldn't, it's kind of OK but not stellar and not suitable for your enlargements. If you need really wide in the future get the Zeiss 15, 18 or 21.

My recommendation, get the 14-24 and wait for the Samyang 24TS (tilt shift) before committing to Nikon. If you really need a TS, the 24 is very nice but soft in corners.

I use LR4 with the distortion removal - until these jobs, it has worked fine. When I showed some of my examples, they found the "software" fixes immediately. (granted that stuff annoys me as well, but never had work that could go towards punching one of the PC-Es.)I was very impressed how quick they found it, but if you know what you are looking for and can't stand, it is easy to see. Nit-picky client, but a happy client = long term contract would be well worth it. At a minimum, a full shoot every 4-6 weeks.

Note msmoto's (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8168421379/in/photostream) If you look at the Fan blades that is one of the same things clients have pointed to. Also at (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8058165156/in/photostream)where the furniture is just "fat" and the lamp is not "correct".

I already know I will have to stitch some sites where the FOV is well outside what 24mm or even 14mm could cover but that is just what happens. What I'm hoping for is that I can shift the 24mm either way to cover it (2-4 shots) and make stitching quicker/smoother than using my 60mm (6-10). I don't want to get bogged down in that debate though. Some things are just unavoidable.

(Cleared Mail Box BTW)

My contribution is from the 24mm f/3.5 PC and the 16-35mm f/4 VR. The plus side of the PC is that as you have suggested, shooting the image originally correct is IMO the way to do it. And, the 24 gives 70° horizontal vs about 89° for the 16mm. But the 11.5° of shift makes it possible to do some amazingly tight architectural shots.

The 16-35 is a big lens, the PC is almost fragile....the locking screws need to be gently tightened so as not to break them. I have not problem with either of these features as I have used a view camera in the past.

The PC as delivered tilts in one axis, shifts in a 90° axis from this. Nikon can change this to the same axis, although I have not found this necessary. Possibly in some studio shots this would be nice.

But, the proof is in the pudding.....

About 150 feet away from the base of the building:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7157362674/in/set-72157631170271000

Mire typical PC shot

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7182102649/in/set-72157629960779508

And, the 16-35mm at 16mm:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8168421379/in/photostream

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8058165156/in/photostream

There you go TTJ....

I use the the 16- 35 with a D800
Converging lines - easily corrected in LR4 but you need to shoot wide, as you lose some of the edges; if you need somthing better, then CS6 is the answer
Major distortion on edges - easily corrected, automatically, in LR4
Cost - mine paid for it self in 2 days
As little software post as possible. (outside of the usual.) I think you have LR4.3

I have tried to PM some examples you but NR say my "In Box is full" ???

Ok so I need some help from people who have used these lenses:
Nikon 24mm PC-E, 45mm PC-E, 14-24mm, 16-35vr, or the older PC Nikkors

So I'm gaining some work for 3 business categories:

Home/corporate landscaping & Interior Decorating (mainly room views)- End use: Mostly web end use but also 16x20 high res prints and mailers.

Commercial shots of Power Line structures in the middle of now ware and in some cities- End use: Very High resolution for print catalogues and tradeshow displays up to 7ft tall by 4ft wide.

Using D800 body

Concerns:
1) Converging lines
2) Major distortion on edges
3) Cost
4) As little software post as possible. (outside of the usual.)

Not concerned about:
1) Sharpness or resolution (all of these lenses easily meet the requirements.)
2) Huge size- The company for the power line job has a graphic designer and all the huge dollar programs to blow up images to huge sizes. he will do that and does not want me too at all. I just need to deliver the optimum output of my camera. Their current images at those sizes were taken with a D90 and an old 35mm Olympus IS50.

Goals/Want to:
-Avoid merging photos. Interior client can pick those out like a kid choosing between broccoli and cake. The power line job will be outdoors and I'm concerned about skies/light with that.
-Converging lines (narrowing at the top) - I hate the look of most software corrected stuff. And 2 of the clients pointed to past work done for them and the distaste for software corrected as well. I need to avoid this as much as possible.

I have to get a wide angle and was just going to get the 16-35vr as that (before the power lines and interiors) is perfect for what I need. But now what I'm looking at, the 14-24mm is now a consideration, but the PC-e 24mm or the 45mm may be a better choice for the work. So do I get: 14-24 and use software and crop the edges and push that envelope, OR 16-35vr and 1 PC-E? If the latter, which PC-e 24mm or 45?(mostly interior and the structures.)

I have no real experience with the Tilt Shift lenses but I know they will correct what I need them too and I can use them for other things as well. Any info from users on how they used them (even if it doesn't relate to the same type of topics) is more than welcome.

The work is enough that I could justify getting a (probably used) PC-E lens along with the 16-35vr - but it will hurt. (Like eating Ramen Noodles for lunch everyday for a year hurt - and here I thought I left college years ago.) I can not swing the 14-24 & a PC-E. That crosses my budget lines too much.

I will be excited to see what anyone's experience can provide.

Thanks - TTJ