35mm Shift Lens Group Test

Nikon 35mm f2.8 PC v Olympus 35mm f2.8 Shift v Contax Zeiss 35mm f2.8 PC

 

Resolution & Drawing Style: Zones A/B (centre frame) at f16

Nikon 35mm PC Nikkor at f16centre)	Olympus 35mm Shift at f16 (centre)	Contax PC Distagon at f16 (centre)
4.5 points	4.75 points	4.75 points

With diffraction a major influence on resolution at f16, the Olympus and Zeiss shift lenses start to look at bit the Nikon. Still the Zeiss gives that little bit more than the others in Zones A and B, though.

Resolution & Drawing Style: Zone C (single frame corner, 17-23mm from frame centre) at f16

Nikon 35mm PC Nikkor at f16 (Zone C)	Olympus 35mm Shift at f16 (Zone C)	Contax PC Distagon at f16 (Zone C)
4.5 points	4.75 points	4.75 points

The stronger microcontrast of the Distagon's T* coating has pulled a little more information out of the wood sections here, but there's the merest fraction more in the shadows in the Olympus capture, which in turn is now comfortably 'sharper' than the PC-Nikkor.

Resolution & Drawing Style: Zone D (fully shifted corner: 29mm from frame centre) at f16

Nikon 35mm PC Nikkor at f16 (Zone D)	Olympus 35mm Shift at f16 (Zone D)	Contax PC Distagon at f16 (Zone D)
4.5 points	4.75 points	4.75 points

At 10mm shift, the outermost parts of Nikon's Zone D are still a no-show and the additional stop has done nothing to improve the corresponding behaviour of the Olympus or the Contax lens: both are still eminently useable at this aperture, and produce unimpeachable, monster stitched files, but f11 can probably be considered the acme of their performance: you'll only stop down this far to slow the shutter or gain a little extra depth of field. At least it's safe to do so . . . .