Some sample photos from the new Nikon PC 19mm f/4E ED lens

pc-nikkor-19mm-f4e-ed-lens-mounted-on-nikon-d810-dslr-camera
Here are a few full resolution sample photos from the new Nikkor PC 19mm f/4E ED lens (show with Nikon D810):

Nikon Nikkor PC 19mm f/4E ED lens sample photos

Nikon Nikkor PC 19mm f/4E ED lens sample photos

Nikon Nikkor PC 19mm f/4E ED lens sample photos

Pictures credit: Knut A. Dahl, Stjørdal Foto. All pictures taken in Trondheim, Norway.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Wilson

    For people who need this specialist product I would say it holds up to its high price tag, these look quite amazing

    • doge

      These do look great, but, what is this lens doing that any of the other existing wide angle lenses can’t do? Is this high cost really worth it? I don’t think most people would think this lens is worth it.

      • Wilson

        I agree that the cost isn’t worth it for more than 99% of Nikon customers but I think Nikon has really put effort into perfecting this lens and has thus raised the price significantly. For the people who are interested in this lens but dont want to spend this type of money, Nikon has an alternative in the 24mm PCE which is fairly close in focal length but doesn’t have such a radical and bulbous lens design. This lens doesn’t offer me a great advantage for the work I do so I definitely can’t justify buying one but for someone who makes money with the 24 and has an opportunity to make their life easier by upgrading it seems to be logical to get the best and most specialized tool possible. The thing I dont understand is at that price point how are they going to sell enough to justify the R&D and resources that go into making such a unique lens.

        • doge

          Totally understandable. But at the same time, there’s almost never a photo being sold today or printed today that isn’t first being touched up in some manner. So this idea that it removes a step or increases your production, to me, seems like a false economy.

          Either way, it seems like a beautiful lens.

          • Wilson

            I’m hoping this is somewhat of a return to Nikon’s “Fuck it we’ll make whatever we want” days of the 300mm f/2 and the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8

            • Spy Black

              Kinda seems that way with lenses like this, the 105, and 58, although they kinda blew it with the 58.

            • Wilson

              Yeah my thoughts exactly. What I would like to see is a Nikon version of the 120-300mm 2.8. The lens Sigma makes is very sharp.. When it properly hits focus but that is the biggest flaw in their system of lenses, any Nikon tele’s focusing system outperforms it in speed and accuracy

            • FerpectShotz

              Nikon if your are watching, listen to this man please!!

            • Owen Perry

              I’ve heard that many people consider the 58 an excellent lens. Have you used it?

            • Spy Black

              No, only seen images created with it. Oddly enough it reminds me of my 50mm f/1.4 SC Nikkor, only with less spherical chromatic aberration. Can’t say that’s really a home run. When I was a kid I almost bought the Noct. I could kick myself now for not doing so.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, the 58mm is not a home run like the 105mm. But it’s a solid extra base hit.

            • I agree, the 105 is a better overall lens, but I really do love the 58 and I use it whenever I can.

            • Spy Black

              They definitely get Brownie Points for going out on a limb with it, but the hype reminds too much of something that, while it may not be so bad, is nowhere near as spectacular as they allude it to be. Kinda like Zeiss…

            • Stefan Suchanec

              I’ve used a ton of nikon af-s, af-d, ai & sigma art lenses, and the 58 is my favorite lens I ever used. I have the sigma 50 1.4 art now, but i miss my 58. I liked the focal length better. It felt lighter and smaller, and it focused so much better in low light. It was not quite as sharp wide open, but something about it was different. The sigma is also excellent, but I think if more people used it they’d like it.. just my 2cents

            • Stefan Suchanec

              and maybe they just missed the price point, if it was like $1100 i think people would regard it as amazing.

            • I think that is a pointless statement, I am a working professional, and there are many things I have that most photographers will never need, and expensive, just because that is the case does not make it what you say

        • Synono Maus

          I make a living as an architectural photographer (in a small but expensive market), and $3,400 is TOO MUCH. I was prepared to swallow $2,500, max, but I can buy a used Canon 5D M2 and a used 17mm Canon tilt shift lens for the same price. I may actually sell all my Nikon gear and switch to Canon…

          • Good point, and remembering that TS lenses were here before the ability to alter images in programs such as photoshop. I will stay with my 14-24 and photoshop for my limited use

            • Tony Beach

              Operative word there being “limited.”

        • Pierre Lagarde

          I’m one of whom that would feel much easier with a regular lens and would have a comparable result in post-pro with no time. TS lenses are very difficult to handle to my sense, much more than any software. So for me this lens is “zero worth it”, clearly. It’s still very interesting for film shooters and they still are some. But I don’t think this tool is very interesting for Nikon, commercially speaking. I’m afraid they just lost the grip with the market by now.

          • Eric Duminil

            You don’t have much experience with tilt-shift lenses, it doesn’t mean that nobody does. It’s like with everything else : practice makes perfect, and I’ve seen landscape/architecture photographer work fast and accurately with TS lenses. When you’re out in the field, you’d better invest 2 minutes in getting every parameter right than having to process it later. You’ll also lose corners, detail and sharpness with perspective control and cropping in post.

            • Piooof

              It’ll also be easier to stitch images obtained with a (properly set) TS lens. All in all, image quality is expensive, and that’s not new. But I agree this price tag does not fit with expectations/hopes.

          • AustinTX

            You just can’t get the result of a TS lens in post-pro. The thing is, the difference is usually subtle but really there. You loose a lot of information when trying to copy a TS lens in post-pro.

            Anyway, it is expensive. I have been thinking of moving to a Canon 6D and 17 TS-E but I’m happy with my 24 PC-E now.

            • Pierre Lagarde

              How conservative reactions. Wake up. The reality is exactly the contrary : computers and softwares are able to do zillions of effects more than any mechanical or optical systems will ever be able to do nowadays.
              Of course we can be sorry of that when seeing to what it leads sometimes (I’m thinking of this horrid HDR effects we had to endure some years ago when the trend was so).
              Though, and sorry but it’s too tempting : saying that cropping and playing with perspective on post make you lose details and sharpness shows that you don’t have much experience in post pro. If you’re doing correctly your work, sure you can lose a bit of the final print size, but with modern sensors and lenses, sharpness is just not a problem anymore. Many (much) cheaper lenses than this one are more than sharp enough to help produce files that endure a cropping or perspective distorsion thru softwares without showing significant loss in details in the final result. Also, the newest panoramic processes allows you to stitch seamlessly several shots, giving you oversized files that can be tortured so much that you have no hope to do the same at shooting time. Thanks to softwares, panoramics can be produce by now with a less than 30 seconds hand held shooting of a subject. No lens can do that alone, and it’s just an example of what nowadays digital processes allow.
              And everybody seems to forget the basics they use everyday :
              they allow you to forget about white balance, have more room for exposition compensation, choose cropping afterward, change colors or group of colors in a single move, add color filters… in few words, if you shoot digital, optical initial “must do” are more and more exceptions, period.
              To my sense, the only use case exception where that kind of lens can be useful is if you’re using film and only follow an analogic production line. If at any point you use computer or file to digital, the interest is just more than questionnable. I’m not judging or comparing the final artistic quality of one process or another, it’s quite clear that film and optics still give interesting results and still can be source of inspiration and lead to reknown creative works (certainly even more than digital by the way), I’m just saying that this kind of lens will be more and more on a narrow niche because most people can do much more with computers and accessible software skills. That’s just a chimera to think that you can always make the difference between post-pro and original tilt on a standard real life print by now and to think that a majority of person will still care.
              Whatever, I can understand that some of us prefer more analogic work. It has so many specific feelings. It’s like preferring vynil records to CDs and that can’t be discussed I guess.
              And I recognize a certain “class” to certain anagogic work that is hard to reproduce with digital… but most of the time and for the common it’s just phantasm and snobbish habits.

            • Nimloth

              You’re not wrong. However, I do think you’re underestimating the amount of time involved. Sure, you can compensate for lost resolution, just add more frames of the same subject (superresolution). Small things like colour correction is trivial. Stitching images to make panoramas is a piece of cake. Etcetera. But every single operation costs a bit of time, computing power and bandwidth. Those things add up very quickly when every sub-image of a composite must be processed. Most people don’t have the computational infrastructure to do this in a short time frame, especially not while in field and/or under tight schedules. Thus, every step eliminated by gear or application thereof saves precious resources. That means a lot of people will have a positive cost/benefit ratio with specialised equipment for years to come. For sure, computational imaging is an expanding field, and we should expect is importance to increase greatly in the near future. But the vast majority of those possibilities aren’t here today, and people who need things like this lens buy what they need today.

            • Pierre Lagarde

              What are you talking about ? The last and most expensive Mac Book Pro + Eizo display would cost 1000 bucks less than this lens and it’s far enough to do any pro photographic work. Anyway, specialized people that can spend 4000 dollars for a lens have already the computer gears to treat the files and/or expensive labs tools (and most probably need it) .
              Also, in the sample photos given here, I’m certain the perspective adjustment would probably be a negligible work. This is forgetting too that no one that want to have a perfect result will only be content with out of the box shoots. Even if you have that kind of gear, you would spend hours of tuning afterward to have exactly the result you need or want. So to me this kind of gear is not making any production gain in any way. When you master effects on computer, you can reproduce them in a bliss. That’s a much easier work than to be pressed by a client on the site, and to be forced to set very picky elements for each shot while you’re outside.
              No, really, computers is now becoming a much easier way. At least, if you have told me about focus plans, or trivially looking serious before a client, I would have accepts some arguments in favor of this lens. But, still, this makes this tool a very specialized one. The problem as I said is not only what it is able to do or not, (I can’t doubt of the ability of this lens, I’m certainly not legitimate for that anyway), but the niche it is addressing by now and the way Nikon is providing nearly useless pricy tools while it should focus on their mass customers to stay in the market. Anyway, I know there are some brand samples out there that only addresses few customers and are still their… but the fact is I love Nikon gears and I have some doubt that I can afford any of them or still be able to find satisfactory tools for my own practice in the future. So yes, that’s that selfish ;)…

            • You are clearly not aware that photographing with a PC-E lens is very different than photographing with a normal wide angle lens. Yes you can correct things in post. But you have to leave room for the loss of corners when you pulled your photo straight. As architectural photographer I work a lot in tight and crammed spaces. Being able to compose exactly what I want on location is worth gold!!! I can see in people’s portfolio if they use a wide angle or a TS. People with a wide angle always include way to much foreground in front of the buildings they photograph. A TS-photographer shifts up his lens and gone is that large foreground that doesn’t add much to the photo. Yes this lens has a hefty price tag, but for a specialized professional architectural photographer like me it gives me an edge and I will buy it (probably next year). You are wrong if you think that correcting in post delivers exactly the same for a cheaper price.

            • Pierre Lagarde

              My concern is not to know if it’s different, it is to know if it’s still useful for most of us in a useful common set of conditions. I’ll try to stop playing dumb (not easy :)) and so : I perfectly know what you can do with that kind of lens and the conditions it allows to manage. It’s just geometry, so nothing really complex or magical. But, in a way, you’re just showing I’m right, in fact : you’re an architectural pro photographer with very specific needs, very specific pool of clients, and probably very specific social web made of people that want to see things the way you’re showing them : as for the needs of this lens, you’re representing a niche. (I’m not judging of its qualities of course, they are real or you won’t have any client I imagine). But, the most people are not concerned and don’t need that kind of tool at all to have relevant results for them. Anyway, to try a trivial comparison that perhaps will make my purpose clearer: even if Renault makes some F1 cars, that doesn’t mean we should all be driving them in normal conditions (and btw, we shouldn’t, of course :D). And that doesn’t mean F1 is still interesting for most human beings;). At least it’s questionable.
              I don’t deny the beauty of producing perfect lenses, that manages angles and distort our reality in a kind of a perfect way… that’s interesting yes, and useful for you and some others, no doubt.
              But on the other hand, software processing is more and more effective and can do things that will never be achieved with any material tool, and it is so also because it has no need to follow geometrical rules, only the rules you need to create for the result you want. And those results can reach another definition of perfection, just because those tools allow it ! (kind of : why do you do that ?… because I can !)
              Also, whereas our vision is changing, the way that kind of lens shows places is not more the way our brain is perceiving them than is the way they would be shown by processing afterward on a computer.
              With all theses elements, my assumption is near to that : if you’re already using softwares, the need for that kind of very specific geometric tool is getting just narrower… just as many material tools became useless because other processes replaced them.
              And I would like to see Nikon invest and invent a bit more in more commonly useful lenses (DX for instance). Here I’ll be more personal : I generally prefer when companies invest and use their energy for the interest and the progress of the broadest possible number of people. I simply don’t think this tool, and the way Nikon communicate about it, fill the bill. In that regard, massive communication to crowd about that kind of lens makes it look more like a technological dead-end or at best, an industrial gimmick.
              Anyway, what makes me happy, is that you took all that time to answer here : you’re busy and that’s a great thing 😀 Keep up.

      • Antonio

        If you ask the question the way you do I’d say that you wouldn’t take any advantage from its usage, so you wouldn’t be able to justify the price and better to save your money.

        • Spy Black

          Rent.

          • Antonio

            Unfortunately not that easy everywhere.

            • Spy Black

              Where are you located?

            • Antonio

              Lisbon, Portugal

          • A1

        • kacoooper

          Just a note – I got the TS-E24 and TS-E17 when they came out. For my work it’s turned out near 90:10 in favour of the 17, especially combining up/down stitched shots to get square shots that would need a 10-12mm (and crop)

          I appreciate the cost issues though…

      • Eric Duminil

        No, this lens is not for most people, and certainly not for those who think it is like any other wide angle.

      • ITN

        It’s not meant for most people. It does a few things. For example, if you need to keep verticals straight and shoot architecture with a superwide angle, without having a lot of foreground in the image, you can (a) use a PC lens or you can (b) shoot wider and crop (losing detail). A third option also exists which involves (c) adjusting the convergence in software, but this results in uneven sharpness across the frame. The 19mm PC also can be used for near-to-far landscape shots with dramatic low vantage point taking advantage of the tilt feature. There are a multitude of uses for the movements available. The 24mm PC is great for near-to-far landscapes and small buildings but with large exteriors it displays pronounced field curvature which makes it not good enough for some tasks that architectural photographers face. The 19mm PC is important because it opens the door for architectural photographers to use Nikon. They can take advantage of the excellent dynamic range of the D810 which isn’t quite available yet on a Canon and are likely to buy other lenses as well. The cost of the 19mm PC itself is high initially but likely will fall over time. It doesn’t need to pay for itself because it is important for image reasons: if all professional architectural photographers use Canon, the aspiring ones will buy Canon as well. This is not an acceptable situation for Nikon. For the same reason they made the 800mm f/5.6 FL. They need the broadest range of options for all professional photographers in order to maintain the image which keeps aspiring photographers coming to Nikon.

        • doge

          That last point makes the most sense for Nikon. Let their engineers design the most optically superior modern t/s lens and offer it to their customers. Although I don’t see this lens ever dropping in price over time. At least not a large drop.

          • ITN

            Many recent Nikon high end lenses have fallen by 20-30% very rapidly after early prices at introduction. So it will likely be with this. The introductory price of the 19mm PC is almost twice that of the 17mm TS-E which simply cannot hold.

            • doge

              Yeah maybe. Still a $2700 lens.

        • craigo

          I think most who do this work for a living aren’t all that surprised by the cost, which is quite modest compared to other systems. One could easily drop a few tens of thousands on a phase one back, an Alpa and a couple of Rodenstock lenses. Those are aspirational systems and nobody gets upset about it.

          With high res 35mm cameras moving into what was previously medium format territory, it makes sense that the economics move up as well. Cost of doing business. These lenses were never meant for the casual weekender.

      • Thom Hogan

        Look at the parallel vertical lines, for one.

        This is the age old thing: have you been trained to see issues that come up in imaging or not? It’s the old “good enough” problem in a different guise.

        And yes, I know I can move vertical lines back to parallel with Photoshop. But that changes crop and acuity.

        So the answer is still the same: right tool for the right job.

      • Carleton Foxx

        24mm isn’t wide enough for real estate photography which is a growing business. It used to be that all you needed was a snapshot of the exterior. Now sellers and buyers expect distortion-free interior shots and that’s hard to do with a 24mm lens in a typical10x10 residential kitchen or bedroom. If I were to guess, that’s where this lens is aimed.

      • steven8217

        You might not need a PC lens but I owned the Nikon 24mm PC lens and I wish I could afford this wider and the new feature of this new 19mm PC lens which could be tilted and shifted independently and then rotated up to 90°. If you have not use a PC lens and what could it does differently to a regular wide angle lens, check it out here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses2.htm

        • doge

          That’s a great link. Thanks for that.

      • dr fresh

        Wide angle is one feature, its the perspective control that your paying for and when USED correctly allows you to create a blurred effect across a chosen field of degree.

      • Alaska

        you know what a TS lens is for?
        try selling architectural images taken with a normal lens to architectural clients .

        and no, fixing in post is not as good….

  • I would like to see some comparisons to the 14-24, just to see in what situations this lens makes sense over the wide angle options already available.

    • SdN

      This lens makes sense because of the single reason that it’s a tilt/shift lens.
      With a ‘normal’ lens you can mimmic some of it’s functions in post production, but for the pro’s who earn money with their work it means way too much extra post production.
      It also makes sense because the 14-24 has terrible wide angle distortion. The 19mm PC-E seems to give perfectly straight lines.

      • T/S can certainly do things a normal lens can’t. That first image though, there doesn’t seem to be anything special there that would require T/S. For the church, I would like to see a profile corrected 14-24 vs the 19. The 14-24 does have distortion, but so might the 19. You are seeing final, post processed, files not SOOC.

        • SdN

          I am convinced that they made it almost completely distortion free. Otherwise they simply can’t justify the price difference with the Canon 17mm TS-E, as that one indeed is nearly perfect.

          And one very important thing you can do with TS lens; moving 5 meters to the left, shift your lens back to the right, so you have the same frame/composition as before, but not with that annoying light pole anymore in front of the building.. This is the true power of TS lenses, at least according to me. 🙂

        • TwoStrayCats

          Exactly. But instead of losing pixels in post to do the correction, you get to do it right in the lens!

          • Eric Duminil

            No. This lens is huge, and basically could cover medium-format when used without tilt-shift. You’re losing photons, sure, but they wouldn’t fall on the full-frame sensor anyway.

      • Pat Mann

        I suspect the lines are straightened in post – I don’t expect any DSLR lens this wide to be distortion-free. There’s a lot of processing (or Flickr clarity effects) visible in these images at 100%, including (in the church exterior shot) some strange broad cyan/magenta fringing on the tree trunk at right that appears to be in a layer mask that doesn’t cover the full image, bright white outlines on the church at the clouds, some extreme fringing in the leaves in the area shifted onto the sensor from the top, etc. I don’t think that this lens is in ACR yet (or whatever program was used for processing), so much of the work may have been done by hand or by generic methods that may not work on a shifted image since the typical methods assume the center of the image is the optical center of any distortion or aberration. Still waiting for my copy so I can see the RAW images. Even considering these issues, resolution is clearly much superior at the pixel level on the D810 in the shifted areas to my old 28PC, which was a travel shooting workhorse for many years in the days of transparency film.

        • SdN

          The images are indeed badly processed. But I still believe the lens will be distortion free (almost completely). Nikon has stated this and I also strongly believe they are not going to sell a lens which is 2 times the price of the Canon 17mm TS-E which is almost distortion free.

          • Pat Mann

            Lens makers use “distortion free” or “minimal distortion” pretty liberally. 0.5% barrel distortion is quite visible and annoying if straight lines are near the edges of an image that covers a substantial portion of a page in a publication. I have yet to see a retrofocus ultrawide that I would consider to have low distortion. There are distortion sweet spots in some zooms, so it’s possible, and Nikon may have emphasized distortion in this design – if so, I will be pleasantly surprised.

      • craigo

        Hello, full time commercial pro chiming in. It’s not at all “too much extra post-production” – we already do tons of that – but the other reasons I can think of:

        – What you see is what you get; no guess work about the final frame or messing with it if shooting tethered

        – Excellent prime lens optics (the 14-24 *is* fantastic though!)

        – Easy distortion free stitching for wider views

        – Less pixel waste when straightening or by not cropping

        – Use the tilt function to manipulate apparent depth of field. People here are most familiar with using this for shrinking that gives views that ‘dollhouse’ effect, but you can go the other way and extend sharpness a great deal. This cannot be replicated in post.

        • Spy Black

          “This cannot be replicated in post.”
          You can, but it’s certainly more work. Just image stack.

          • craigo

            Ah yes. I’ve only done a little stacking. Required a bit of extra work fine tuning the masks, the automatic methods only work so well. Also a greater challenge with non-static subject matter.

            • Spy Black

              What software did you use, Photoshop? I use Zerene Stacker and I’ve never had to mess with it to get a proper stack. Most PC shots aren’t of “non-static subject matter”.

              I’m not saying a PC lens isn’t needed, just isn’t always needed.

            • craigo

              I think we used Stacker – this was awhile ago, so perhaps they have improved on all fronts. I recall it was a lot of work getting the results desired, but perhaps with time could have gotten more experienced and faster at it.

              Keep in mind that images made outdoors aren’t really static either, especially if you have wind and plants in the foreground! Or, an interior with a person. Stacking is cool but often not the solution!

          • Thom Hogan

            Again, no. Focus stacking is not the same as changing the focus plane. It may be beyond what some people can see, but there is a rendering difference.

            • Spy Black

              Then that will only matter to the photographer, not the client. I’m not arguing against PC, I’m just saying that stacking is another way to get everything in focus.

            • Thom Hogan

              Believe it or not, a few (top) clients do care.

            • Spy Black

              Right, but most won’t. Again, I have nothing against PC, but stacking is definitely an option.

            • focus stacking works only for static objects!
              or did anybody try it on moving objects?

          • Tony Beach

            Those who haven’t used a tilt lens can’t really appreciate the creative possibilities it offers. I actually like having some things out of focus even as I’m more in control of what is in focus. Also, I would rather spend a couple of minutes getting things more or less the way I want them in the field than half the night messing with it on my computer (which is not to say I don’t mess with my photos on my computer, but it’s GIGO if you don’t start out getting it right in the field).

            • craigo

              You got it Tony! I find it more creatively freeing if I’m able to get my frame right in the field and not thinking “oh, i’ll straighten it later” or “i’ll fix that crop”… we do that when we have to, but it’s not my preferred! It comes down to how you want to work.

              I’ve put tons of money into tools that enhance my creative ambitions and it’s hard to make a strictly business case on that – long term returns on happiness and more refined work that follows!

              For what its worth, I love technical/view cameras and the deliberate nature of them, studying a frame and carefully creating it. That’s part of the craft to me.

        • SdN

          Hello, full time commercial pro. Yes.. and that is exactly what I meant with: ‘This lens makes sense because of the single reason that it’s a tilt/shift lens.’

        • Piooof

          Yep, but for a wide lens like the 19 mm the ability to slant the plane of focus will be rarely useful. That’s definitlely a great feature in a 85mm TS.

          • Just Me

            Pretty useful for landscapes with really close foregrounds.

            • Piooof

              Right, but it is not a compelling argument for the TS since in this situation focus stacking works very well for much cheaper. Of course, if you happen to have already shelled > 3 k$ for such a lens then it’s a nice bonus.

            • Just Me

              A few weeks ago I read an article in which the author defended his use of filters that can be replicated in post. He said he loves to be out in the field taking photos but has no love for sitting in front of a computer fixing them. I agree.

              As an aside, I have tried focus stacking and, while it works +/-, I don’t enjoy the process. Too tedious and, again, too much time in front of a computer.

              While I don’t make the bulk of my income from photography, I don’t have any vices to drain my disposable income (unless you count my daughter ;-)). While you’re enjoying an adult beverage, I’m saving that money toward stuff I want but can’t justify on paper. 🙂

            • Piooof

              To each one his/her choices… but if I were to save the $6 of my Friday pint for this 19 mm TS, assuming I’d drink 30 Fridays/year (which I don’t), I would still need 19 years of savings to afford this marvel 🙂 There lies the rub!

            • Just Me

              Your first line is probably the most relevant. Some folks like gadgets, others not so much.

              The drink reference was intended to serve as an example for multiple expenses. For some folks that would be multiple pints on Friday, maybe some cigarettes, a couple of joints, an evening at the local casino, a young lady’s company… 😉

            • Piooof

              To put it more plainly: we’re not in hobby territory with these prices. For most people, this is more money that they’re willing to spend on non-essential stuff.

            • Just Me

              Agreed…”for most people”. While the appropriate price for any item is fairly objective, an individual’s ability and willingness to pay for them is not.

          • craigo

            More useful than you’d think! Foreground details can be important. Consulting my DoF calculator, you’re looking at advantage in objects in the 4-6 foot range, if you’re focused in the distance.

            • Piooof

              Your DOF calculator should have told you that with a 19mm on a FX sensor, if you close at f/11 and select the hyperfocal distance your DOF extends from 0.55 m (1.8′) to infinity. At f/16 the DOF extends from 0.39 m (1.3′) to infinity. I’m afraid this does not render Scheimpflug very useful in general use.

            • craigo

              I take diffraction into account and am conservative! f/11 not so hot once you go up in resolution! f/16 definitely not hot at all!

              Anyway, splitting hairs. Use these tools to have fun!

            • Pat Mann

              If your DOF calculator is based on 8 x 10s at 150 dpi for publication, maybe. If you’re trying to make use of the 36mp sensor for high resolution large prints, you have much less DOF than your settings in that calculator.

        • FerpectShotz

          craigo’s first point is so relevant. I did a hotel shoot recently and used a wide lens and plenty of shots to stitch in case I was missing something. To say it was nerve wracking would be an understatement. I didn’t like it at all that I had no complete picture of how the finished photos would look like.

          Thankfully the pics came good and the client was happy but not something I would want to rely on when the client has a tight deadline.

    • Julian

      I have the 14-24, any time you tilt it up from the horizontal you need the TS to correct the converging verticals, but the price tag places this lens out of my reach for sure. If it had been around the price of the 14-24 I would have snapped it up.

      • I have the 14-24 as well, the converging verticals is the same for any lens other than PC. You can correct verticals in post though. That is what I suggested, show a side by side version of corrected 14-24 vs the 19.

        • Julian

          yes I know it can be corrected in post processing, but it does mean that when you shoot off horizontal you always need to think to leave enough room for the cropping out that will occur due to the post processing which is a pain – just not a $3000+ pain 😉

          • Julian

            The 14-24 is a really awesome lens that said though, especially when combined with the Lee filter adapter for ND grads!

  • MB

    Nice examples of what the lens can do …
    First one is shift and rotate panorama I would say, and the other two are showing tilt/shift action for focus and converging lines control and also elongating effect … something you cannot do with a regular lens without loosing quite a few pixels …
    It seems that Nikon is finally doing the right thing … this lens and 105 f/1.4 may not be for everyone but they are showing that Nikon can make truly wonderful lenses … let us just hope that some of this magic will be brought to some of more affordable in the near future 🙂

  • DrNo666

    The latest releases such as D5, 24-70, 70-200, 105/1.4 and now with this T/S… Nikon seem to be pushing the consumers completely out of the pro segment. The cost is now so high its not even thinkable for hobby photographers to this stuff.

    • All prices of photo gear are going up. Have you seen the price of the new Olympus MFT camera? Costs more than the D500.

      • DrNo666

        Prices go up yes… but when it jumps several levels then they will appeal to a different market. People with a huge interest for photography can pay 2000 for a lens and perhaps the double for a camera. But 4000 for a manual lens? and 6800 for camera? No its simply not designed to us in the same way as Ferrari dont really give

        • Yes, companies cannot sell the same numbers they did few years ago in order to keep the prices low. The strong dollar doesn’t help either. I think it will actually get worse in 2017.

          • Horshack

            IMO the camera industry is going supernova – an ever-escalating increase in prices by manufacturers making their last stand at becoming/sustaining profitability by going after the last viable niche of the market – very high-end prosumers. This wont end well.

      • T.I.M

        Not all photo gear went up, my TC are still selling for the same price, and it’s been 5 years now !
        :o)

    • chrisgull

      Well, this is a pro lens if any. And it’s actually really a cost saver with a D810 compared to going the Phase One route and sinking $30-60K into a comparable setup.

  • Gabriel Border

    This lens is hopefully fantastic…with zero distortion. Nikon needs to get this lens into the hands of full time commercial photographers who specialize in architecture. Those images don’t really do us any good.

  • Joey Bagadonuts2

    Looks great. We need a win. If I see one more YouTube photographer saying “Jason Lanier was right, Dumping Nikon was a no brainer” I’m gonna plotz. Then you see that those guys are “Official SONY Magicians of Light and Wonder”. I want to see Nikon offer more and more quality. I’m only going by these processed images. But it looks like it’s good and I have ordered the lens back on day one.

  • My 17mm TS-E photos look just as good.

    Oh and they’re 2mm wider.

    Oh and it’s so much cheaper.

    LOL

    • Spy Black

      …but you can’t mount it on a high resolution body with superior noise and dynamic range.

      LOL

      • I can. It’s on my Sony A7Rii

        LOL

        • Mike

          Cheaper lens, plus adapter, plus more expensive camera that needs 4 batteries to get throught a day of shooting. Hardly winning the cost effective battle here vs a D810 and 19mm PC lens.

          • Sold my Nikon D800 specifically for this camera. Couldn’t be happier. Never had to use more than one battery in one day. Not a heavy shooter though.

        • Spy Black

          Touché

      • Eric Duminil

        “Superior noise” 😀

        • Spy Black

          That does sound funny, doesn’t it? 😀

  • TwoStrayCats

    Great photos, Knut. But I do have to say that #1 was shot straight down the barrel and level – so you didn’t even need a T/S for that one!!

    • Just Me

      Pano (Shift).

    • Pat Mann

      60mm x 23.75mm image – straight down the barrel maybe (just a bit off center), but you DO need a shift lens to get that from a 35.9mm wide sensor.

      • TwoStrayCats

        Ah, yes: I stand duly corrected. Lovely.

      • Phil

        I’m assuming a lot less perspective distortion than using an ultra wide lens for the same shot and less hassle than conventional stitching. This would be my main justification for buying. I need to rent one and try out first.

        • craigo

          Strictly speaking, you can just shoot very wide and then crop to match the aspect ratio of the shifted pano. The downside to this is:
          – Waste of pixels
          – You don’t see what you get immediately, unless shooting tethered and applying the crop right away
          – It will have the depth of field of the wider focal length

          I often shift and use depth of field to keep it interesting by blurring foreground objects, so for this the crop method is unsuitable and doing a shift pano works nicely.

          • Phil

            Interesting. Leaving resolution to one side and looking at perspective, I’m trying to visualise (a typical use scenario where you can’t move further back) the exterior of a building shot both straight on and at a side angle with a 12/14mm lens vs for example a 60mmx24mm stitch from the 19mm PC and using content aware fill on the sky to create a 3:2 aspect ratio image. Would love to see a side by side comparison.

            • Pat Mann

              Based on a nominal 19mm focal length, the 19 with 12mm shift should be able to cover a 3:2 2×2 pano about 56mm wide (most would shoot this as a 3×3 to provide more overlap) with an overall angle of view between that of a 12mm and a 13mm lens. The angle of view and perspective would be the same, and distance constraint from the subject would be the same, as with the equivalent wider lens with no shift. Of course you get maximum width with no rotation, so with simulated ground and sky you can go a bit wider than with a multi-row panorama stitch. Somewhere within the shifts and rotations the 19 may vignette at the corners of a shifted multi-row pano due to obstructions in the light path – without having the lens yet I can’t tell where that limit may be for a 2:3 image. Shooting a 2-shot horizontal pano gives a bit more width, but simulating the top and bottom to get that bit more seems impractical.

    • Adam Fo

      How do you know there wasn’t a bit of front tilt to increase the plane of focus ?

  • T.I.M

    This is not an easy lens to use, I think the 24mm PC-E is more useful, the point of the PC lens is to be able to keep the camera straight and use the shift function.
    Keeping a 19mm straight will give you unwanted front ground.

    • Just Me

      I don’t understand. Could you elaborate?

      • T.I.M

        Basically, with the 19mm you will pay extra $$$ for space that you won’t use.
        The 24mm PC is more oriented architecture and the 85mm PC for studio work where the tilt function is more useful.
        I would not exchange my Nikon 18mm f/2.8D for the new 19mm PC-E

        • Just Me

          I see but, unless I misunderstand your point, I disagree. It would depend entirely on the composition. Your point could be true for any focal length. I think the 19mm would be useful for interiors or exterior shots where you’re limited by how far you can back up from the structure. If you can move far enough away, you wouldn’t even need a shift lens.
          While my 24mm PC-E works fairly well for me, there are occasions where I could use the 19mm and would still have to pan the camera.

  • Mojito

    Question for the pros: Does the camera sensor have to be perfectly perpendicular to the line of sight to the subject to get good results? If so how do you accomplish that? My bubble levels don’t seem very accurate.

    • Just Me

      I’m not a pro but you don’t really want it to be perfectly perpendicular. Perfectly straight lines look fake…you want to minimize converging lines, not entirely eliminate them.
      I believe most full frame dSLRs have an in-camera level and you wouldn’t want to mount this lens on a camera with a smaller sensor.

      • Mojito

        Thanks. I shoot an 810. Completely forgot about the in-camera level.

        • Just Me

          🙂 I usually forget about my 3-way shoe mount level!

    • tomskyphoto

      Also not pro but have been using (tilt-) shift lenses since film days. I usually align the camera with the lens fully centered in all movements first including the verticals slightly converging to the top to avoid the impression of buildings falling over towards the camera.

      Unfortunately both my hot shoe bubble levels as well as the internal camera levels (D810 among them) proved to be highly inaccurate. Normally I use either to get in close proximity to a leveled camera and do the final adjustments with a geared tripod head using the grid pattern in the viewfinder as a visual cue. Metering is done in manual mode with the lens still centered and then the desired amount of shift is applied before taking the image.

      However, things go awry pretty quickly once one wants to use tilt and shift at the same time. Other than with a view camera where tilt for relocating the focal plane can be achieved by moving the rear standard a TS-lens by default moves the front standard (there are so called rear-shift adapters by third party manufacturers) and that front tilt brings back perspective problems due to the upward pointing lens. It can of course be compensated by a reciprocal forward drop of the tripod head but definitely requires a geared head with controllable single axis movement.

      • Just Me

        Are you using the Manfrotto 410? In any case, and specifically if you are, do you find it tedious to make gross adjustments? That’s always been my concern and impediment to getting one.

        • tomskyphoto

          I had been worried about that too before getting my first geared head. But as I own multiple tripods I set up a medium sized Gitzo carbon as my architectural tripod and have found out that the need for large head adjustments is essentially negligible because all you usually want is pretty much a leveled camera. Uneven terrain or steps are roughly compensated by variable leg extension. However, I’m using Arca style L-brackets on all of my architectural setups thus avoiding cumbersome 90° side flips of the tripod head when shooting in portrait orientation.

          Can’t say much about the 410 as I never had any real good experience with Manfrotto tripod heads and stayed clear of them; but according to hearsay the 410 seems to be one of their better products. Got myself an Arca Swiss D4 in the geared version as a real steal from eBay and that thing’s just great. But even at my bargain price it was still more expensive than the larger Manfrotto 405.

          The Chinese company Sunwayfoto – I own several Sunwayfoto products and they’re excellent in craftsmanship and value – offers a geared head very similar to the Arca Swiss D4: the GH-PRO. It’s a bit smaller and more lightweight than the D4 and apparently there had been some issues with Arca regarding patent infringements that caused a temporary sales stop but it seems that the GH-PRO is available again (retails between 330 and 450$). There are some reviews of it out there in the interwebs which are quite positive.

          • Just Me

            Thanks a lot. Very helpful! 🙂

          • Pat Mann

            A geared head seems very useful with any shot that requires precision alignment like these PC lens shots. One project I have involves shooting straight down through the tripod (with 50mm, not with wide PC), so there’s a different awkward flip involved. I’m looking at the Cube vs D4. The Cube has a 60-degree flip that would seem to make this easier. What’s your feeling about using the D4 to align looking straight down? With a 90-degree angle plate for the base of the D4?

            • tomskyphoto

              I don’t think the D4 like any ball head would do a particularly good job when being flipped over to the side. None of its mechanics are really designed for supporting large side loads and apart from vibration problems there might also be some sag requiring excessive tightening forces on the axis locks. The Cube with its tiltable base looks like a better choice for the kind of setup you described.

              When shooting perpendicularly with a ball head or a ball head like design I’d rather mount the camera to the short end of a relatively long asymmetrical Arca double dovetail L-bracket (or a construction of some nodal slide/pano head parts serving the same purpose) and add some balancing counterweight to the free end of the long part. The long rail then gets clamped from the bottom side in the upward pointing tripod head close to the CG of the setup. By that the head stays in its normal orientation with minimum side loads on the gears and locks also making adjustments easier and more precise.

              As the entire design is reversible it would of course also work hanging from the head on an inverted center column.

      • Mojito

        Thank you. Very helpful.

      • craigo

        Good overview. T/S lenses will always have the compromise over a view camera where its preferable to move the back instead of the lens.

        Back when I was learning the ways of scheimpflug I had a really good instruction book published by Sinar that recommended straight verticals unless you were close enough to the subject that you would have to tilt your head to look up at it by (I think!) – 45 degrees. The recommendation was to have some converging in that case.

        I generally follow that and just go with what feels right.

        • Pat Mann

          The newer Schneider T/S lenses have their mount on the optics, so the T/S mechanism moves the sensor. Very expensive, and no ultrawide as yet. The 50 does not have good reviews on the optics; the others seem OK. I was disappointed, but not surprised, that Nikon didn’t take this route for the 19.

          • tomskyphoto

            Trouble is also that a lens front mount puts a lot of stress on the delicate mechanics of the lens, especially when a heavy DSLR like a D810 would be dangling unsupported from its rear end. Maybe one reason for Nikon to skip that option for the PC-E 19.

            I’m using Canon’s TS-E 24II and 17 with a Sony A7RII but I wouldn’t even like to load those frail spring loaded dovetail tilt and shift mechanisms with the weight of the camera and the Metabones adapter. Neither would I trust Sony’s flimsy toy-like build to support the weight of the adapter and a TS-E in perpetuity. So the Metabones got an Arca L-bracket for central support of the entire combination as it still seems to be the most robust part of the three components.

            Not ideal from an optical point of view but I’d hate to damage either the camera or one of the TS-E’s simply for cost reasons. Nevertheless, still thinking of a rear shift adapter for the occasional use of extreme Scheimpflug or shooting shifted frames for stitched panoramas – two occasions where a spatially fixed lens front element definitely makes live much, much easier.

  • Eric Calabros

    Looks like medium format quality, and Nikon hasn’t released 50+ MP D810 replacement yet.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Soon…

  • Alda Smite

    little side note – you can NOT post process this effect…. ofource you can process a shyt out of your images and I ma not caring about time or workflow here (as only draw back for postprocessing that some commenters think)…. processing distortion is pixelstrertching – it destroys original piixels – it looks wierd and is not acceptable if you need high quality images… if only time and workflow would be a subject then you could take protraits with a fishaye and post process a pincushion in your images, right?

    • draco

      Aye!

  • kacoooper

    As an architectural photographer using Canon’s TS-E-17 and TS-E24 for a large proportion of my work, it’s great to see Nikon finally offer a wide solution for this market. Many of the examples here are over-processed from my own POV, but you can get some idea of the use of the lens.
    Definitely a lens you probably need for your work if you are going to justify. If you think post processing fixes all you need, then move on 😉

  • the first image:
    you should mention, that this is (must be) a stitched image of two shifted images!!
    and how much did you shift the single image?
    The edges are getting soft on this shift, or why using f/14 on a scene like this?

    the second image:
    not really sharp and a lot of CA!

    • Pat Mann

      Based on the pixel count for the shifted panorama image, the lens was shifted close to the maximum 12mm each direction (shifted, then rotated 180 degrees).

  • Stephan

    These images could have been taken with an ordinary wide-angle lens indeed. Perhaps a bit of rise was used in the last sample, but the discontinuous depth-map in all three images cannot be treated with the tilt option. I own the 45 and 85 PC-Es but in-particular for the 45 mm, the tilt is even too generous. So a geared nob for fine-adjustment would have been nice for the 19 mm lens. It seems not to be.

  • George Goodroe

    I regularly shoot Large Format, and having the capability to do perspective control with a lens designed from the ground up for FX cameras would be well worth the cost for me. Images like that Cathedral shot wouldn’t be possible to keep proper perspective without rise…and that extreme horizontal of the river benefited from tilt and control of depth of field. If you’ve never used perspective control you wouldn’t understand why it’s worth it.

  • Roar Arne Velle

    I don’t know a better town in Norway for living and studying, – and it is the only real cathedral in Norway, – where St.Olav grave is,(-Olav digre or Olav Haraldson). The pictures are good too, without perspectiv control in Lightroom.

  • dr fresh

    I’m sorry but WHAT about those sample picks indicate perspective control ??? Great pics, but think someone missed the point of this lens…

  • in 2013 I made a test with the Canon 17mm TS-E on Leica M9
    (that was my only FF body with adapter for Canon EF at that time)
    Now I use this lens on my Sony A7RII with adapter. I sold my Nikkor 24mm PC-E, without an adapter that can control the electronic aperture (I don’t know any) it is useless on other than Nikon bodies. The only way could be to stop the lens down in a Nikon body, remove it stopped down and mount it on a mechanical adapter on a mirrorless, as I did with the Canon lens on Leica.

    The image is a combination of 13 images made out of all possible single images, that the Canon 17mm TS-E can capture out of the image circle by
    shifting the lens to the extreme positions and rotating it for every
    shot by 30°. Normally a shift lens is used to take one shot. This image
    shows the possible extreme positions, to where you can move the
    camera/sensor for a shot. For buildings for example you keep the camera in horizontal position and move the lens upwards (the camera seems to look upwards) within the image circle and the building on the image stays vertical without any distortions!

    And it shows the possibilities and combinations for stitched images out of this very large image circle. This will be the same for the 19mm PC, but less wide of course.

    for wide angle comparison overlaid with real (!!) images
    of the Voigtländer CV12mm (red),
    Leica Super-Elmar 18mm (green) and
    Leica Super-Elmar 21mm (blue)

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3eed315c81c93e87c40d4dfceb8fd466476b87272181154337d7d0df1b5cd5a2.jpg

  • Reilly Diefenbach

    Number two is a mess. Much better to stitch.

  • Some people cannot see the value in this lens… I make most of my money from interior photography and the 14-24 has served me well however, perspective correction takes time, reduces the lens coverage and most importantly leads to visible image degradation… Thus I have been limited to keeping the 14-24 practically level and at waist height to get interior photos that require minimal correction..

    I did look at the 24/3.5 but when I checked my photo statistics from the last 2 years of using the 14-24, I found I rarely use 24mm… Most of my shots are generally at around 18mm to make the properties look more spacious.

    At about $500 per location, I should be able to pay for this in three to six days on a good week, so for me the PC19/4E is pretty much a no brainer.

  • Back to top