Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
Have you worked the 90mm TS-E as a macro lens, elevating and increasing depth of field? Or, used the TS-E 24 for portraiture or still life? And what are you printing to to blithely assume that 35mm is not suitable for landscapes? You sound a lot like the way Ken Rockwell rattles on comparing this and that and one thing over the other with no technical balance to reinforce it. Please, some of us have been in 35mm professional practice for decades.
I think you misread what I was trying to say, so i'll spell it out a little bit more..

I have used the 90mm, great lens, but we're talking about the 24mm.

I have in fact used a 24 T/S, it was the new Nikon one. I rented it for a weekend just for kicks and to compare to my 24 f/1.4G. Great lens, but I prefer the rendering of the 24 f/1.4 because I shoot people and I want isolation. 24mm and f/3.5 doesn't really give you that unless you're on top of someone.

I never blithely said that 35mm was unsuitable for landscapes. I said 35mm is a PITHY format. Pithy means brief, terse, concise. Essentially It covers alot in very little. That is NOT a bad thing, and I never stated that it was.

Congrats that you are/were in 35mm professional practice for a long time. I work professionally analog too, whoop-dee-do.

About technical balance, if you're going to spend the time to use t/s movements, at least use the format designed for it. I just said that the 24/TS in some ways may be a lesser tool to large format for landscape/architectural. You get more movement on (lets just say) a 4x5, and your negative is over 15x larger. If you're going to spend the time to use a t/s, why rob yourself of detail and tonality with 35mm? 35mm is designed for speed and portability, everyone knows this. So my question is why weigh it down with movements trying to emulate what you get with a 4x5?

It's all a difference in personal perspective, dude.