On 29 Oct 2002 09:58:44 -0800, brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote:
>David Littlewood
news:
>
>> The latter point is probably at least in part because PC lenses must be
>> designed to have an image circle much larger than normal for a 35mm lens
>> (to allow for the shifting). Thus you are using the "sweet area" in the
>> centre of the image circle when using the lens unshifted. (Since they
>> are also very expensive, and mostly sold to critical users, the makers
>> will of course tend to use the best design they have.)
>>
>> (I imagine you knew this, TP, but thought others might not.)
>David:
>Tony's latter point can only be based on inexperience with this
>particular lens because it is not true. This is simply not the best
>28mm lens for normal unshifted use. The design is compromised by
>having a larger-than-normal image circle. This is the main reason
>that medium and large format lenses perform less well than 35mm
>lenses.
>Brian
I'm not sure I agree with the above... While you
may have had a poor sample, the 28mm f3.5 PC Nikkors
I've seen were excellent unshifted at f3.5. BTW, I once
compared Nikkor 28mm f1.4, 28mm f2.8 (AIS, the good
one...), 28mm f4 PC (the earlier one...), and the 28mm-
70mm f3.5-4.5 zoom at 28mm and all at f5.6, of a
landscape shot against the sun. I would have guessed
that the f2.8 would have produced the best image, with
the f1.4 just behind it, with the PC 3rd (and likely to
show loss of blacks due to camera internal reflections
from the large image circle), and with the zoom last...
I would have been wrong. The PC and zoom looked the
best in the slides, with the 2.8 a bit behind, and the
f1.4 last by a further bit (focus was careful...).
BTW, a few view camera lenses perform very well on
35mm - a old Kodak 203mm f7.7 that will cover 5"x7"
is an example (it was used on a view camera with a
35mm back on it in a hospital I worked in - results
were very crisp). You cannot make predictions about
all lenses from theory, though in general, you
sometimes can make them about some...;-)