Tilt-Shift Lenses FX format

[abelpascasio]

Would like to ask if the PC,PC-E lenses which are "FX format" is also compatible to DX camera body?

[OsmosisStudios]

Yes and no.

The lenses work just fine but you will encounter difficulties with using the tile-shift features on a DX body as the pentaprism housings are smaller and lower than those on FX bodies.

[jdepould]

All the PC lenses are FX ... actually, I'm not sure you could make a DX tilt-shift, since by definition is has to have a larger image circle.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by jdepould

All the PC lenses are FX ... actually, I'm not sure you could make a DX tilt-shift, since by definition is has to have a larger image circle.

Actually, it's easier to make a DX tilt-shift, because of this. The image circle has to be larger than with a normal DX lens to cover the shift, but a standard FX lens's image circle is already probably large enough to be used for shift on a DX body (depending on the amount of shift involved). It's the FX tilt-shift that's harder to build because its image circle has to be larger than a standard FX lens's image circle. Most of the cheap Russian tilt-shifts, like the Arsat/Arax, are actually medium format lenses simply mounted on a tilt-shift adapter for 135 format (FX). That's why the widest one you can find is 35mm, and the 80mm is so much cheaper. On medium format 35mm is wide and an 80 is close to normal.

[abelpascasio]

thanks for the reply guys, since it is compatible I might work around with the tiltshift functions. Thanks

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by inkista

Actually, it's easier to make a DX tilt-shift, because of this. The image circle has to be larger than with a normal DX lens to cover the shift, but a standard FX lens's image circle is already probably large enough to be used for shift on a DX body (depending on the amount of shift involved). It's the FX tilt-shift that's harder to build because its image circle has to be larger than a standard FX lens's image circle. Most of the cheap Russian tilt-shifts, like the Arsat/Arax, are actually medium format lenses simply mounted on a tilt-shift adapter for 135 format (FX). That's why the widest one you can find is 35mm, and the 80mm is so much cheaper. On medium format 35mm is wide and an 80 is close to normal.

Yes, but since you're expanding the DX circle, wouldn't you end up with FX coverage? Granted, your tilt-shift movements would be more restricted, but from a technical point of view, you'd still be covering an FX sensor edge to edge, no?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Yes, but since you're expanding the DX circle, wouldn't you end up with FX coverage? Granted, your tilt-shift movements would be more restricted, but from a technical point of view, you'd still be covering an FX sensor edge to edge, no?

Yeah, but think of how many FX lens designs already exist. Covering an FX sensor edge-to-edge with a lens's image circle is something that Nikon's been doing since their first 35mm film camera.... that's not the tough part. The tough part is making one wide enough for a crop with good image quality. On the Canon side, the widest they've managed to go with the TS-Es is 17mm (for full frame, mind you), and you should see the front element on that baby: looks like a soap bubble.

The most probable reason that Canon and Nikon don't make crop tilt-shifts is the cost of the lens, and a tilt-shift's most common usage: architecture, landscape, and macro/product photography. Most professionls who need and can afford a tilt-shift lens probably already shoot full frame.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by inkista

On the Canon side, the widest they've managed to go with the TS-Es is 17mm (for full frame, mind you), and you should see the front element on that baby: looks like a soap bubble.

That's funny because it's true.