@dormant....Thanks, that was a nice review. And the Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 fouls on the body of any of the non pro body Nikons as well. And, as you pointed out, combining tilt and shift can get to no-man's land in a hurry. These PC lenses are a lot of fun, however and can be quite useful in tight situations where to do all the corrections in post is simply not possible.

Thanks for sharing your experience...

Thanks--that's brilliant.

I also enjoyed the article you had printed in When Saturday Comes on your site. As a Baggies supporter, the Roy Hodgson photoshops had different meaning entirely. (Ah well. Saturday's coming.)

At last, I'm playing with my Arax T&S. My conclusion is that it's a fun thing to waste some money on. If you need it for work, buy a Nikkor instead.

My full thoughts are here. I will add more images when I get some time. (I have another job, you know!)

shawnino said:
Dormant: What's the verdict?

I'm sorry to say that I've hardly used it so far. Will try and find time to play with it.

Dormant: What's the verdict?

@SP: That is serious food for thought. Thank you.

shawnino,

If I were you I would ditch the 20mm and put that towards the PC-E 24mm. Its utility outside of its capacity for lens movements is broad and only limited to your skills at manually focussing a wide lens. If you can use your focus confirmation effectively you'll find yourself wanting to shoot most everything with the lens. Its the next lens on my list barring a sudden yearning for the 100mm f2 offering from CZ, but my experience with the PC-E 45mm from Nikon has certainly taught me that its a very effective replacement for my 50mm when shot without movements. As much as I loved the convenience of having AF with my recently sold AF-D 50mm 1.4, I found that under any circumstance where I wanted to achieve a photo with a thrown background with a very shallow depth of field I much preferred the results from the 85mm 1.4 or from the 200mm f2 over the 50mm. I also soon found that I much preferred the image quality of the 45mm over the 50mm and bokeh is significantly nicer on the PC-E lens despite "only being f2.8". Its uniform in shape and gradient and when using tilt or swing movements the bokeh can be dramatically enhanced if one has the creative eye to know how and when to apply it. If you're setup is just right it can actually resemble a wide open shot on a fast lens, except that you can set your exposure values such that your resulting image quality, contrast, tonality and dynamic range are a world apart from the results that you get when shooting at or around a fast lenses widest aperture.

@msmoto:

Let me begin by saying I visit your webpage once a week and I really admire your work.

Question: Do you ever use the 24mm f/3.5 for regular (non-tilt-shift) work? If so, how does it perform?

The reason I ask is the wide end of my lens set looks like this: Sigma 8-16mm, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4. I am on a D90 presently but my next body will probably be a jump to FX. Now I can probably delude myself into thinking there's a gaping hole iin my bag between 20mm and 35mm that "needs" to be filled with a 24-28mm prime. Early on, I'm just looking to fool around with the tilt-shift, but if I could tell myself that the 24mm PC was also a useful lens untilted and unshifted, I might be able to tell myself I'm getting two lenses in one... opinion?

Maybe this does not help, but if one is really looking for something to shoot money shots, I anted up the two large for the 24mm f/3.5 Nikkor PC. It blows my mind....and the manual focus is so cool... you really have to look and see what is going on! But, the cost is very high and if it is just to play with, the Nikkor or Schneider are sort of foolish.

I will be anxious to see if the less expensive lenses are good performers. And, when checking these out, as the camera will be on a tripod, I would suggest about two to four stops down from wide open. That is, on an f/3.5... shoot at f/8 to f/16 and see how it goes. Then try the other two, f/22, f/32. I would not be at all concerned about the "wide open" performance due to the nature of the shots one generally takes with these tilt/shift lenses. The less expensive glass may surprise us all.

Did you get the chance to check it out, Dormant?

Anybody else?

Great info TTJ. Thanks as always. You really add to the forum.

Dormant: Everything :) I'm hoping the IQ is OK, and I'd like to know if it covers DX completely and FX at least satisfactorily. I'd like your impression of the build quality. How easy is it to make the lens move where you need it to go? Does it go on and off the bayonet mount easily? Does it take filters well?

Something I saw on a Finnish site (my Finnish is virtually non-existent, but hey, an image is worth a thousand words...) is that at f/2.8 the 35mm looked unusably soft. Is that the case or is it a matter of technique? How is it out around f/5.6, f/8, f/11 where I'd be using it most of the time?

Any overall impressions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much.

I've just got one - the 35mm!

I have a Ukrainian friend and hoped she could get me one cheaply when she went home recently. When asked (in Ukrainian), the factory just says "buy on the web". It's a nightmare trying to buy in local shops without in-depth knowledge, as there are many older models around. So I ponied up the full amount to a US importer.

I have not had any time to play with it yet, but will post my thoughts as soon as I do.

Is there anything in particular you want tested?

I have seen both. Most "non tooled" designs utilize Medium format lenses. You need a larger image circle to cover the sensor with T&S lenses so the light fall off is not as bad. There really is a ton of info on them if you start looking. They are still around $500-1000 though. Some also do not have the same functionality as the Nikkors or others such as the "toy" look since they have limits on their movements.

This is on Flickr group I have followed.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tiltshift/

It's my understanding that the mount isn't what may or may not be re-tooled. Or at least not the biggest piece of work. Rather, the product used to be a regular prime lens, and was re-tooled to become tilt/shift. There's always the possibility I'm totally out to lunch.

There are ones that are already Nikon mount without having to re-tool anything.
If you do a Google search the sites will pop right up. Ebay has a ton of them as well.

Search terms: Arsat, Arax, Photex, Kipon

A good Russian tog my wife knows has talked me out of it. He says their re-tooled glass is absolutely brutal. Too bad, as I was hoping it'd be a low cost solution.

I've seen various sites on the Internet that tell you how to DIY MacGyver a cheap 50mm 1.8 prime into a tilt/shift, using a shower head, a faucet, or a dram of pixie dust, but I've never had the guts to go ahead and do it. Anybody ever give that a go? I would love to have such a lens in my arsenal, but I'm not inclined to cough up over $1000 for it.

I'm even too much of a nervous nellie to try to mod msmoto worked on her fisheye. Her results are stunning, but I'm just too scared.

Search Flickr - there are some good threads and discussions on these lenses. Some models, makes have some limited use due to the design so it probably would be wise to make sure to understand the differences between them.

Overall, I have heard they are well made, and depending on the lenses you add to them, can be really good tools for the price. I looked into it a few times, but honestly my $$ were better spent on other things as I didn't really have a need for one so I didn't spend much time looking at them.

Make sure to post back what you find, It will be interesting to hear for sure.

So I'm reading through the main blog...in the weekly recap there's something about three new Schneider tilt/shift lenses. In the comments, a poster points to Arax (and posts a website link) as a manufacturer of tilt/shift glass much cheaper than the Schneider and well cheaper than Nikkor "PC" lenses.

I'm trying to discern the quality (or lack thereof) of this Arax glass. I'd like to try to do some t/s photography but I'm not ready at this point to splash out $1500+ for Nikkor or $2K, $3K, or more for Schneider glass. Certainly there's some measure of "you get what you pay for", I'm not an imbecile, but if I can get good results on the Arax, at their pricepoint ($500-$700) I'd be happy to "settle" for good results.

Does anybody have first-hand experience with Arax/Kiev/Arsat (three brands, same optics) t/s lenses? My Russian wife (don't mention the Cold War; I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it) and I have found a review by a Finn and handful of short comments from users but nothing that approached the depth of knowledge of the people who write here. We found the history of the Kiev factory and as far as we can tell these lenses are modified pieces of leftover stock, but that doesn't tell us if they're any good.

Anybody ever shoot these? Thanks.

PS: That rumoured 17mm Nikon PC looks very sweet, but who knows the cost if/when it gets made.