Got a Canon DSLR a few months ago. It came with a 18-55mm Zoom. I'm interested getting a wide angle for architectural shots. Low distortion if possible. Seems like in some instances I can't quite capture an interior without being too far from the subject or just can't get far enough back Any suggestions for a lens
While tremendously expensive, there are a number of perspective correction lens on the market - they may be worth further research.
There is an architectural photography discussion group at www.photo.net - you may find more authoritative technical advice there, since most of those folks are pro-photographers or advanced amateurs.
there are flat field wide angle lenses available, but they will be expensive. your best bet is with a prime (fixed focal length) lens. Most zooms, especially cheap ones made by sigma have varying degrees of barrel distortion at their widest field of view.
if you are serious and willing to get away from digicams, look for a used hassleblad swc or xpan. the xpan uses 35mm fillm for panoramic shoots and teh swc uses 120 film for square images. both have amazing lenses, while the SWC is legendary as the widest flat field lens ever produced.
the Xpan
the SWC
Canon makes some great tilt/shift lenses for their 35mm film bodies. don't know if they every got adapted to the digi bodies...
or embrace the fisheye look.
Architectural photography lenses are some of the most expensive glass out there due to their ability to hold vertical and horizontal lines true. You may be able to pick up a PC (perspective correcting) lens on eBay for less than a grand or a really nice pro-level prime with low barrel distortion for a bit less. I’m not quite sure what is available on the wide end of PC lenses but you will be able to find a prime.
I have the Sigma 10-20 and the distortion on the 10mm end if you are anything less than 90degrees to your subject is pretty radical - not at all what traditional architectural photographers will appreciate. However, combine this lens (around $450 - $500) with the distortion correction abilities of Photoshop and it may be your best option.
I have yet been able to figure out how to eliminate barrel distortion in photoshop in the 14 years I've been using it. correcting perspective is easy, but getting curved lines to become streight?
Just remember you get what you pay for with lenses. new wide angle primes under $400 are trash and the same for wide angle zooms under $800. wider angle requires bigger glass which equals more $$$$.
On caveat against most consumer grade digicam SLRs and their glass, if the sensor is smaller then 24mm x 36mm (traditional 35mm image size), the field of view for each lens is significantly less then traditional slrs. So a 24mm lens on a 35mm slr has about a 90 degree field of view. the same 24mm lens on a digicam might get about a 60 degree view. so you have to go extra wide to get what you used to be able to see.
optics are an art that many conglomerates just don't understand or do well - stick with the old school major optical powerhouses (nikon, canon, leica/zeies and maybe minolta) and you'll be better off.
Again, pointing you all to the manual focus Minolta range. The tank-built XE-1 (XE-7) that I use is exactly the same as the Leica R3. Minolta gave Leica knowledge of electronics and Leica rewarded with the lens technology that made Minolta's fantastic Rokkor lenses. The XD-7 (XD-11) is the Leica R4, and though it has shutter-speed priority as well as the aperture priority of the XE-1, it doesn't have the same all-metal construction that makes the XE-1 (or the XK/XM/X1 which I have been seeking for years) such a joy to use.
I just got hold of the Rokkor 17mm f4. For £130. It gives 103degrees. Nothing developed from it yet, but taking pictures through it is an enormous pleasure. Even the thought of framing something through it has changed my view of the city (and its interiors). I like how an intimate knowledge of my lenses makes me seek out new aspects of my surroundings. Looking for a good shot for the 500mm mirror lens (gives 5 degrees, with ring bokeh) makes me feel like a sniper, sharp shooter.
I also use a Rokkor 35mm shift lens which cost £250ish. I don't use it as much as the 24mm (83 degrees) VFC (Variable Field Curvature) which allows a convex or concave "bowl" of focus. I'll admit to not using the VFC much (The shift lens has it too), but it's a beautiful beautiful piece of glass. The standard 24mm is much cheaper and gives similar joy.
The bodies are comparatively cheap so I tend to go out with two, different lenses on each. It reduces the wear on the bayonet and the risk of lens damage/dirt. It also means you can check the meters against each other and carry one with faster film or black and white.
It is heavy, compared to a digital with one zoom, and it's a pain in the ass for limited kg baggage air travel, and cycling, but it's worth it.
The Rokkor 50mm f1.2 (1.2!!!) goes for about £150. Can you get faster for less?
Re-reading the Rokkor Files, and apparently I'm lying about the XD-7 not having all metal construction. It does. Still, it doesn't have the same hefty joy of the XE-1. It feels a little plastic-y, more like the Olympus OM's.
camera brands invoke fierce loyalty broken into japanese versus german optics, and then the weird mixes like minolta. but more important is to handle a few different camera bodies and lens combos, then select what feels/works best for you. some people like certain pentaprism setups/viewfinders, or like the feel of the zoom rings on one series of lenses, etc...
with the electronic bodies with autofocus et al, make sure you like their system of selecting the focus location. Canon's eye sensing focus point drives me crazy by shifting focus while I'm composing as I glance around the frame. I prefer a manual selector of the target...
it all comes down to preference. If a camera system fits you, you'll take great photos compared to a more expensive system that you're constantly fighting...
I'm alittle green with photography. Usually, I'll get one dyamite shot in hundred. It's still fun. I think a 1000 dollar lens might a bit over the top. A 400 to 500 lens sounds like what I'm after. A 10-22 should be great
instead of a zoom, get a a prime lens or two. better optics, less weight, faster apertures, less $$$. this will also train you to be a better photographer as you learn to frame and compose in the viewfinder.
What camera body do you have? Different Canons have different aspect ratios... e.g. if you have a 5D, the lenses will be a little different than they are on a 20/30D.
If you are truly a serious photographer I would strongly recommend NOT getting away from digital cameras. Instead, learn to wield digital large formats, and combine multiple images from multiple cameras all linked as slaves to get some truly stunning perspectives.
Also I've never really been convinced of the "need" to correct lens distortions - It's not like we see things at perfect 90 degree angles anyway. Whether it's that the straight planes of a building are "distorted" into curvature, or whether the image as a whole is distorted into an orthogonal idealized rectangular frame, with the subject distorted into dramatic angles (or bulges, I guess), developed with the perfect painterly color balance/saturation (or black and white) that no human eye will ever see in real life, and shot within the 30 minutes of the day's prettiest light.... it's all still distortion. I guess if you are learning to be a professional architectural photographer who chooses to work for people who insist you adhere to the merely 100-ish year old conventions of architectural photography, then sure, learn those skills and buy that gear. If you're looking to spend $400-500, f it. Just use whatever. Dude, do not get confused by all of this.
One dynamite shot in 100 is pretty typical for all the best photographers. OK, maybe some get down to 1 in 50, with probably 10 of those being "useable," though not dynamite. :)
for those who don't know surfaces (as she's been laying low during the school year), she is a great photographer...
Of photographs that I've gotten published/exhibited over the past 10 years, I've been averaging about 1 great shot per roll. Sometimes 2 per roll. Half were usable from those trips. But this is as much through subject matter, location, weather, and other outside the camera variables. I've also shot illusive subjects wasting dozens of rolls of film without anything even worth keeping.
When I started really getting into photography, I would press the shutter release without hesitation. Now I taken many less shots that I once did. Knowing when to shoot is as important as knowing what to shoot and how to control the image in the camera.
I am in no way a professional photographer. I would like to get better. Certain equipment helps deliver more interesting and desired results. About 30 years ago my dad got me a Nikon EM 35mm that I still use. Recently, I went got a Canon XTi that I really like. I would like to add lens that could help get more interesting photos. Obviously, I need to educate myself about the equipment out there , which is quite overwhelming
I have a pocket digital for things like information on the wall of a gallery, shop contacts, things to research, it functions as an outsourced memory.
When shooting on film, it is expensive. It might be Art. I frame a lot of shots through the lens, switched on, wound on, but don't push the button. When I get a roll developed, and somehow my horoscope and hormones have contrived to the making of a lot of crap images, I am horrified. What a waste.
There are times where I'll take two or three very similar shots, different exposures, angles, but it's like target shooting. If it's not on the bullseye, why waste your bullets?
Surface is in a different league to me here. I shoot handheld on film under natural light. It's not cutting edge creativity, or bleeding-edge technology, but it is a meditation, and adds layers to the way I see the world. Working within limits (of certain technologies) can be just as challenging as working without limits. Working with less to make better, and other Miesian truisms.
No animals were hurt in the making of these sentences.
Wide angle Lens Help
Got a Canon DSLR a few months ago. It came with a 18-55mm Zoom. I'm interested getting a wide angle for architectural shots. Low distortion if possible. Seems like in some instances I can't quite capture an interior without being too far from the subject or just can't get far enough back Any suggestions for a lens
should do the trick.
Sigma makes one too.
Most of the distortion can be fixed in Photoshop.
While tremendously expensive, there are a number of perspective correction lens on the market - they may be worth further research.
There is an architectural photography discussion group at www.photo.net - you may find more authoritative technical advice there, since most of those folks are pro-photographers or advanced amateurs.
Good luck.
Thanks
I like the perspective of those who frequent this site. Many are well versed in photography/ equipement
there are flat field wide angle lenses available, but they will be expensive. your best bet is with a prime (fixed focal length) lens. Most zooms, especially cheap ones made by sigma have varying degrees of barrel distortion at their widest field of view.
if you are serious and willing to get away from digicams, look for a used hassleblad swc or xpan. the xpan uses 35mm fillm for panoramic shoots and teh swc uses 120 film for square images. both have amazing lenses, while the SWC is legendary as the widest flat field lens ever produced.
the Xpan
the SWC
Canon makes some great tilt/shift lenses for their 35mm film bodies. don't know if they every got adapted to the digi bodies...
or embrace the fisheye look.
I am relatively sure the tilt/shift lenses will work on the DSLR, but yeah, get the 10-22
check dpreview.com for reviews
Architectural photography lenses are some of the most expensive glass out there due to their ability to hold vertical and horizontal lines true. You may be able to pick up a PC (perspective correcting) lens on eBay for less than a grand or a really nice pro-level prime with low barrel distortion for a bit less. I’m not quite sure what is available on the wide end of PC lenses but you will be able to find a prime.
I have the Sigma 10-20 and the distortion on the 10mm end if you are anything less than 90degrees to your subject is pretty radical - not at all what traditional architectural photographers will appreciate. However, combine this lens (around $450 - $500) with the distortion correction abilities of Photoshop and it may be your best option.
That Hassy SWC is sweet!
I have yet been able to figure out how to eliminate barrel distortion in photoshop in the 14 years I've been using it. correcting perspective is easy, but getting curved lines to become streight?
Just remember you get what you pay for with lenses. new wide angle primes under $400 are trash and the same for wide angle zooms under $800. wider angle requires bigger glass which equals more $$$$.
On caveat against most consumer grade digicam SLRs and their glass, if the sensor is smaller then 24mm x 36mm (traditional 35mm image size), the field of view for each lens is significantly less then traditional slrs. So a 24mm lens on a 35mm slr has about a 90 degree field of view. the same 24mm lens on a digicam might get about a 60 degree view. so you have to go extra wide to get what you used to be able to see.
optics are an art that many conglomerates just don't understand or do well - stick with the old school major optical powerhouses (nikon, canon, leica/zeies and maybe minolta) and you'll be better off.
Again, pointing you all to the manual focus Minolta range. The tank-built XE-1 (XE-7) that I use is exactly the same as the Leica R3. Minolta gave Leica knowledge of electronics and Leica rewarded with the lens technology that made Minolta's fantastic Rokkor lenses. The XD-7 (XD-11) is the Leica R4, and though it has shutter-speed priority as well as the aperture priority of the XE-1, it doesn't have the same all-metal construction that makes the XE-1 (or the XK/XM/X1 which I have been seeking for years) such a joy to use.
I just got hold of the Rokkor 17mm f4. For £130. It gives 103degrees. Nothing developed from it yet, but taking pictures through it is an enormous pleasure. Even the thought of framing something through it has changed my view of the city (and its interiors). I like how an intimate knowledge of my lenses makes me seek out new aspects of my surroundings. Looking for a good shot for the 500mm mirror lens (gives 5 degrees, with ring bokeh) makes me feel like a sniper, sharp shooter.
I also use a Rokkor 35mm shift lens which cost £250ish. I don't use it as much as the 24mm (83 degrees) VFC (Variable Field Curvature) which allows a convex or concave "bowl" of focus. I'll admit to not using the VFC much (The shift lens has it too), but it's a beautiful beautiful piece of glass. The standard 24mm is much cheaper and gives similar joy.
The bodies are comparatively cheap so I tend to go out with two, different lenses on each. It reduces the wear on the bayonet and the risk of lens damage/dirt. It also means you can check the meters against each other and carry one with faster film or black and white.
It is heavy, compared to a digital with one zoom, and it's a pain in the ass for limited kg baggage air travel, and cycling, but it's worth it.
The Rokkor 50mm f1.2 (1.2!!!) goes for about £150. Can you get faster for less?
rokkor files
Re-reading the Rokkor Files, and apparently I'm lying about the XD-7 not having all metal construction. It does. Still, it doesn't have the same hefty joy of the XE-1. It feels a little plastic-y, more like the Olympus OM's.
camera brands invoke fierce loyalty broken into japanese versus german optics, and then the weird mixes like minolta. but more important is to handle a few different camera bodies and lens combos, then select what feels/works best for you. some people like certain pentaprism setups/viewfinders, or like the feel of the zoom rings on one series of lenses, etc...
with the electronic bodies with autofocus et al, make sure you like their system of selecting the focus location. Canon's eye sensing focus point drives me crazy by shifting focus while I'm composing as I glance around the frame. I prefer a manual selector of the target...
it all comes down to preference. If a camera system fits you, you'll take great photos compared to a more expensive system that you're constantly fighting...
I'm alittle green with photography. Usually, I'll get one dyamite shot in hundred. It's still fun. I think a 1000 dollar lens might a bit over the top. A 400 to 500 lens sounds like what I'm after. A 10-22 should be great
instead of a zoom, get a a prime lens or two. better optics, less weight, faster apertures, less $$$. this will also train you to be a better photographer as you learn to frame and compose in the viewfinder.
What camera body do you have? Different Canons have different aspect ratios... e.g. if you have a 5D, the lenses will be a little different than they are on a 20/30D.
If you are truly a serious photographer I would strongly recommend NOT getting away from digital cameras. Instead, learn to wield digital large formats, and combine multiple images from multiple cameras all linked as slaves to get some truly stunning perspectives.
Also I've never really been convinced of the "need" to correct lens distortions - It's not like we see things at perfect 90 degree angles anyway. Whether it's that the straight planes of a building are "distorted" into curvature, or whether the image as a whole is distorted into an orthogonal idealized rectangular frame, with the subject distorted into dramatic angles (or bulges, I guess), developed with the perfect painterly color balance/saturation (or black and white) that no human eye will ever see in real life, and shot within the 30 minutes of the day's prettiest light.... it's all still distortion. I guess if you are learning to be a professional architectural photographer who chooses to work for people who insist you adhere to the merely 100-ish year old conventions of architectural photography, then sure, learn those skills and buy that gear. If you're looking to spend $400-500, f it. Just use whatever. Dude, do not get confused by all of this.
One dynamite shot in 100 is pretty typical for all the best photographers. OK, maybe some get down to 1 in 50, with probably 10 of those being "useable," though not dynamite. :)
for those who don't know surfaces (as she's been laying low during the school year), she is a great photographer...
Of photographs that I've gotten published/exhibited over the past 10 years, I've been averaging about 1 great shot per roll. Sometimes 2 per roll. Half were usable from those trips. But this is as much through subject matter, location, weather, and other outside the camera variables. I've also shot illusive subjects wasting dozens of rolls of film without anything even worth keeping.
When I started really getting into photography, I would press the shutter release without hesitation. Now I taken many less shots that I once did. Knowing when to shoot is as important as knowing what to shoot and how to control the image in the camera.
I am in no way a professional photographer. I would like to get better. Certain equipment helps deliver more interesting and desired results. About 30 years ago my dad got me a Nikon EM 35mm that I still use. Recently, I went got a Canon XTi that I really like. I would like to add lens that could help get more interesting photos. Obviously, I need to educate myself about the equipment out there , which is quite overwhelming
tk - shoot more, not less! When have you ever said to yourself, 'damn, I wish hadn't taken that photo.'
[admitting I am addicted to Minolta]
On digital shoot more
On film shoot less
I have a pocket digital for things like information on the wall of a gallery, shop contacts, things to research, it functions as an outsourced memory.
When shooting on film, it is expensive. It might be Art. I frame a lot of shots through the lens, switched on, wound on, but don't push the button. When I get a roll developed, and somehow my horoscope and hormones have contrived to the making of a lot of crap images, I am horrified. What a waste.
There are times where I'll take two or three very similar shots, different exposures, angles, but it's like target shooting. If it's not on the bullseye, why waste your bullets?
Surface is in a different league to me here. I shoot handheld on film under natural light. It's not cutting edge creativity, or bleeding-edge technology, but it is a meditation, and adds layers to the way I see the world. Working within limits (of certain technologies) can be just as challenging as working without limits. Working with less to make better, and other Miesian truisms.
No animals were hurt in the making of these sentences.
Ok, I'm really interested now - let's see some Surface work. Link?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.