Nikon 24mm PC/E - tested
Nikon PC/E 24mm in neutral position vs Nikon 24mm AFS G f1.4 (at f11)
I've had a love hate relationship with the Nikon 24mm PC/E lens since the day I got it 4 years ago. Its been back to Nikon twice, once because it seized up and the second time to recalibrate. It was giving results where the edges were sharp the horizon was sharp but the centre middle distance were often soft. Which made it for me unpredictable and highly frustrating. Anyway Nikon offered to sort it out as it may have been reassembled incorrectly. One of the issues with this lens is field curvature which can make focusing a real challenge, a hair turn either way can make a difference.
Because of the mixed results I was getting from this lens I thought I would see how it compares to the 24mm f1.4. The cropped images are from jpegs unsharpened.
Because of the mixed results I was getting from this lens I thought I would see how it compares to the 24mm f1.4. The cropped images are from jpegs unsharpened.
|
This column Nikon 24mm f1.4
Nikon 24mm f1.4 whole image
Nikon 24mm f1.4 left edge
Nikon 24mm f1.4 right edge
Near centre of image Nikon 24mm f1.4
|
This column Nikon 24mm PC/E
Nikon 24mm PC/E whole image
Nikon 24mm PC/E left edge
Nikon 24mm PC/E right edge
Nikon 24mm PC/E near centre
|
Nikon 24mm PC/E vs 24mm f1.4 - photo results - the 2 images were both taken at f11
At any wider aperture the 24mm f1.4 is superior at the edges as the field curvature on the PC/E becomes more of an issue.
So f11 is probably as good as it gets with the 24mm PC/E, if you are after max depth of field.
The trees in the far distance (centre) are sharp in both images.
The obvious conclusion is that if shifts and tilts are not essential then the 24mm f1.4 is the best lens all round by far but if shifts and tilts are essential then the 24mm PC/E is the only way to go but great care must be taken in focusing. At its best the 24mm PC/E is a very sharp lens.
When using the rise shift sharpness issues can occur at top centre, again because of this zone of field curvature. Focusing is critical.
I've tried the Schneider wide angle pc tilt shift lens and its a little better optically than the Nikon but not perfect. Its a lot more money, weighs too much and is super slow to use.
At any wider aperture the 24mm f1.4 is superior at the edges as the field curvature on the PC/E becomes more of an issue.
So f11 is probably as good as it gets with the 24mm PC/E, if you are after max depth of field.
The trees in the far distance (centre) are sharp in both images.
The obvious conclusion is that if shifts and tilts are not essential then the 24mm f1.4 is the best lens all round by far but if shifts and tilts are essential then the 24mm PC/E is the only way to go but great care must be taken in focusing. At its best the 24mm PC/E is a very sharp lens.
When using the rise shift sharpness issues can occur at top centre, again because of this zone of field curvature. Focusing is critical.
I've tried the Schneider wide angle pc tilt shift lens and its a little better optically than the Nikon but not perfect. Its a lot more money, weighs too much and is super slow to use.
Nikon 24mm PC/E - 3 more images/results from this lens
IMAGE 1. Tresco 1/100 sec at f9 - shift raised - trees without converging verticals
Centre left - slightly soft towards the horizon
Just to the right of the last crop, looks better
IMAGE 2. Mapperton 1/6 sec at f10 - shift tilt neutral
Top of door frame on right - very good
Above far door frame - good
image 3. Thailand Garden 1/320 sec at f7.1 - neutral positions
High centre to distant trees - excellent
Dead centre - excellent
Centre right - terrible
So the results are a bit of a mixed bag which is a shame because at its best its brilliant. In the last shot the lens sings in the centre but the edges scream. Is this out of focus due to field curvature and a more limited depth of field? If I'd used a smaller aperture or tried refocusing would the results have been better... probably. But you would think with a 24mm lens focusing and depth of field would never be an issue.
The first 2 images would make perfectly good prints to at least 18 x 12 the last image would show its weakness at 10 x 8.
The first 2 images would make perfectly good prints to at least 18 x 12 the last image would show its weakness at 10 x 8.
