>I did sell my 24mm PC-E last fall after being frustrated with >it's soft corners in comparison to the 14-24. Especially >since there's no DxO profile for it, being a shift lens. > > > >Also, if you're shooting tripod mounted, large DOF shots such >as architecture or landscapes, just use DxO to convert for >maximum sharpness in the first place. I tested the 14-24 >against the Zeiss 21, and standard LR conversion has the Zeiss >sharper (only on the extremes). But once the 14-24 was >converted in DxO, it surpassed the Zeiss. Meaning, paying all >the extra money a Zeiss isn't always necessary. >
Well, I begin to become somewhat mindful of the role of DxO: don't buy a lens because they don't have a profile for it? You make them determine the way you shoot? This is the best way to get incapacitated as a photographer. I also noted they don't have profiles for PC-lenses; why? Because they are not such big sellers? For me at least shifting and, sometimes, tilting is an essential part of my photography, and post-exposure-software, useful as it is, cannot replace but only complete it.