"Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >That was the original intent. In fact, I presented this as my plan and >argued for it, but some folks here objected. There will be three photos: > > 1 Shift lens shifted. > 2 Shift lens unshifted and realigned. > 3 SMCA 28/2.8 > >I agree with you about the SMCA 28/2.8.
I certainly don't object to this plan; I'm actually kind of interested in the results and look forward to seeing the test shots. I'm still hoping to borrow an example of this lens to do some tests to answer a couple of questions that you can't address with the lenses you have available to you. The first question is, "If I have $1000 to spend on a ~28mm lens for architectural photography, will I get better results from a shift lens or a comparably priced non-shift prime?" As someone who doesn't currently own either, this is the question that really matters to me. The second question, the one that I don't *need* to know about but would like to explore anyway :) is, "Are the design compromises inherent in a shift lens (larger image circle) more detrimental to the final print than the printing compromises (perspective correction in Photoshop) involved in using a high-end prime?" The first question is of great practical importance (I expect a second hand shift lens would still sell for more than a new 31mm Limited). The second is purely intellectual curiosity. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
