> >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. > >Lukas >
No, I certainly did not say not to buy a lens because DxO doesn't support it. DxO doesn't support Zeiss/Nikon profiles, but I'd surely still love to add more Zeiss lenses regardless. I believe they don't have profiles for PC lenses because of the variable nature of those lenses prevents the creation of profiles in the first place. Perhaps I'm wrong though. I make my living shooting architecture, and rent a shift if my 14-24 can't handle a certain composition, but I was simply making the point that the 24 PC-E is soft when used for critical situations in comparison to the 14-24 or the Zeiss lenses. Couple that with the fact that the softness cannot be corrected using software such as DxO, for me it seems to be one of the few lenses that doesn't measure up to the D800 (which is the point of the original thread). That being said, at normal print sizes the softness cannot really be seen.