andywilk38 Loc: Cambridge UK

I shoot quite a number of interiors using a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, mounted on a full-frame body, mostly at around 14/15mm focal length.

By the end of post-processing, properly correcting for distortion and perspective, I'll end up with a lot less image. I'm not sure what the equivalent focal length(s) of my finished images are, but would I have been better off simply using 24mm PCE and saving time pp?

I've never tried a PCE lens, and 24mm focal length seems very long for the wide-angle shots desired. I think Canon do a 17mm TSE, which seems far more useful.....can this convert to a Nikon mount?

Any thoughts?

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

You could always investigate a bellows unit and you could use it with any focal length lens.

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/tilt-shift-bellows

andywilk38 Loc: Cambridge UK

Thanks!
Hadn't thought of that. I'll take a look at the link you provided. Initial thought - how practical?

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

Canon register distance shorter than Nikon. No such conversion could focus infinity.

andywilk38 Loc: Cambridge UK

Thanks for that info :)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The PC-E will help in several ways - first, you will be able to control depth of field, avoiding the sharpness-stealing F16 and smaller, as well as generally being able to avoid focus stacking. The other benefit is in being able to shoot easy panos - a well-proven technique to expand the field of view without increasing perspective distortion.

A 24 PC-E on a full frame camera in portrait orientation will give you the equivalent horizontal FOV of a 17-18mm lens, and considerably less left and right edge distortion. The process is quite easy. You will need to level your camera. Then take a shot with the lens shifted all the way to the left. Take another shot with the lens centered. And one final shot with the lens shifted to the right. Open Photoshop, open all three images as layers, Edit, AutoBlend layers to panorama, wait a few seconds and you are done.

If you have parallax issues, then you can mount the camera on a rail that allows you to move the camera in the opposite direction by the same amount you shift the lens - Really Right Stuff makes such a device, but you can probably figure out a DIY way to do the same thing and avoid the exuberant cost of their pano rail.

Ultrawide lenses have their place in an architectural photographer's bag, but they are used when nothing else will work - as in very small rooms like powder rooms, apartment entrance foyers, and NYC kitchens. For everyone else's benefit, since I think you already know this - wide angle perspective distortion IS NOT converging verticals - that is called keystoning, and this will happen any time you tilt a camera back, regardless of what lens you have on the camera. But it is most pronounced on the shorter focal lengths. Wide angle distortion is a combination of a)perspective distortion where foreground elements are rendered disproportionately larger than they should and background elements disproportionately small, b)volume anamorphic distortion, where elements at the edges and corners become unnaturally elongated and expanded - a thin person standing near the edge of the field of view gains 200 lbs. Some lenses are better at correcting for this than others, but unless you are using a 38mm Schneider Biogon on medium format, a 25mm Zeiss Distagon on 35mm or full frame - you are not going to see this type of distortion addressed in a meaningful manner.

So to answer your original question, yes, the 24mm PC-E would do a great job, but for architectural use you should have it modifed by Nikon to rotate the lens movements so both tilt and shift are on the same side - this will allow you to shift the lens AND control depth of field at the same time. Currently Nikon service will do this for about $90 and it will not void the warranty. There are some DIY sites that explain how to do this, which involves removing 4 easily stripped screws, rotating the front half of the lens 90 degrees, being careful not to dislodge or break the communication ribbon cable (delicate and short, easy to mess up) - but I would not recommend this as it would permanently void your warranty, and if you happen to mess up the cable it will cost you a lot more than $90 to replace that part.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This will only work with a lens that has a very large image circle, which most lenses do not have. Many barely cover the FX sensor. Another issue is barrel or pincushion distortion - which is virtually nonexistent on the PC-E lenses.

andywilk38 Loc: Cambridge UK

That's brilliant info....and clarified a lot for me, thank you!!

Haha - there goes my first £1 into the 24mm PC-E piggy bank ;)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Andy, I started doing architectural (not real estate, which is pretty different) back in the early 70s. I used a Sinar P 4x5, Nikon 65mm and 90 mm lenses, which were roughly equivalent to 21 and 28mm in 35mm. For architectural work the tilt and shift is of great value, and though it is a pretty wide lens, in portrait mode 3 exposure panos look pretty normal.

andywilk38 Loc: Cambridge UK

Interesting.

I use my 14-24, because I had it from landscape work, but do often find myself in ridiculously small rooms!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I like that lens so much I have two of them (looking to sell one, actually), but there is no better lens on an FX camera for close quarters - totally agree on that . . .

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

Although I shoot Canon, I readily agree with Gene about the tilt shift usage for architecture. I understand the difference between real estate and architecture, as I shoot mostly interiors for interior designers and distortion is a big no-no (as is wrong color reproduction)

I do use a 16-35mm on FF, but tend to stay at the 24 and longer range unless the room is tiny. Otherwise I actually use my TS lens, rotated so the shift is horizontal regardless of camera orientation. I will also use an appropriate lens on a nodal pano head setup. It all depends on the situation.

Gene, you're explanation on TS usage is really concise and educational.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Although I have shot residential real estate but not architectural, I did do some research into lenses. The Nikon 14-24 is one of the most highly respected lenses for interior shooting.
Going to Canon - would have to go with the 16-35, or even the 17-40 all on a FF.
I have never used a TS lens, but I would think it too narrow for residential use.
I have used a 19-35 on a FF and wished I had a few MM more to play with on the wide end.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Actually, for pros, the TS lenses are the go to lenses - they provide the most flexibility and best image quality for all the reasons I stated. The others, well, are ok in a pinch. But if you are doing RE and not Arch - no RE agent is going to pay for that kind of image quality and the time to set up each shot. The 14-24 is a great lens, for what it does. It is not my go to for interiors, though. I get much better results with less post processing using a 24 PC-E and doing panos - it is nearly impossible to correct for perspective distortion and still maintain excellent image quality. Better off avoiding the distortion to begin with. But RE is different, and you can get away with small rooms being rendered to appear to be 50 ft in depth.