High quality lens for interior -- architectural and real estate work

<p>My experience with Samyang has been variable. The 85mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses have proved brilliant, so I took a punt on their 24mm f/1.4, which proved to be not so brilliant. The first sample had ridiculously bad decentring and had to go back. The replacement is OK-ish. I tried the 14mm a couple of times, but only had about 5 minutes to play with it each time; indoors and without a tripod. Even so the corner sharpness looked OK, and that was wide open on a D800. Also the display sample of 24mm T/S I tried gave good IQ. Both the T/S and 14mm display lenses behaved suspiciously much better than review pictures posted on the web. So I fear that there's a lot of variability between samples.</p>

<p>If you can find an understanding dealer that'll take returns without question, then you might strike lucky with Samyang and get a very good one. However your mileage will almost certainly vary.</p>

<p>Thanks, RJ. I admit that I'm only reporting reviews when I talk of the 14mm; I've only got the 85mm - the first one arrived without working electronics, but the replacement was fine. Honestly, if I could trust the optics, I'd love their tilt-shift (mostly because of decoupled tilt and shift axes - I've been spoilt by a Hartblei). Still, there's an argument that, if they're half the price of the competition, it's sometimes worth the risk. Variability is a bit worrying, but then some of my Nikkors don't behave like ones others own either.</p>

<p>The PCE or any rising lens is less useful in interiors than exteriors. The point of using rise is to eliminate what is commonly felt to be less interesting foreground (usually about half the image on the average exterior shot at a distance) in favor of building coverage. You want the foreground in an interior shot since it's part of the building - it's the same as if there were interesting gardens in the foreground of an exterior shot. There are other uses for tilting and shifting lens in interior architectural photography but less prevalent in small format where inherent depth of field is larger. </p>

<p>My thanks to all who have (so far) contributed experience and advice to this thread. I'm coming into this new application (for me) from 16+ years of serious landscape work with a 67-MF film system and six primes. The majority of work, initially, is scheduled for real estate images which will serve fliers, brochures and website portfolios. There are a couple of commercial building projects on the horizon. I'm looking forward to some magazine spreads, too -- gotta have a growth path in mind, right? Many of you have mentioned distortion issues with several of these lenses, and I've learned of a number of effective fixes available with post-production software. Because I'll still be doing landscape shooting, I want glass which will let me produce sound, large (30x45) prints. Whether that means single captures or multi-stitches, the end product will need to compare favorably with my MF past. For the new work I'll be bringing along the big 4-section Gitzo, as well as an 8' step ladder, to help with more favorable perspectives. It would be great to add a 28 mm PC-E to the kit in a year, but that isn't good fiscal policy right now. So, I think I have concluded there are 2-3 viable solutions for me to concentrate on. Now, it turns on the shopping process: I'll aim for select pieces in the used/refurbished market over the next couple of weeks. I appreciate all the input from the Nikon forum. Thanks.</p>

I've had good luck with the 17-35 f 2.8d af-s (pre2004) some vertical distortion but easily correctable.

Used for architecture , real estate, virtual tours, events, and weddings.

Here's a sample

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5870797&size=lg

<p>Thanks, GJ. I like the coverage you showed in the interior shot. I mulled the idea of getting the Nikon 20mm and being able to have f2.8, but I know I'd sometimes need wider coverage, and even doing a two-shot stitch would present some issues in post: matching lighting and getting the alignment just right. Your lens features the 2.8 along with a good zoom range. So, I'm back to thinking the wide zoom is the answer. Actually, it would be really nice to have for some canyon shooting, too. Whatever I get will do double duty for my landscapes. [ larryjohnsonphotography.com ]</p>

<p>Architectural interior images usually require straight lines to <em>remain straight</em>. Zooms can very rarely accomplish this, especially at the shorter focal lengths. I use an 18mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor for all of my interior shots which require a broad field of view (or tight spaces) and it works flawlessly. It is razor sharp, usually more than wide enough and his NO perceptible pincushion or barrel distortion whatsoever. And they can be had used for around $500 in great shape</p>

<p>Hey, Scott: I fully agree with the straight lines, especially if they're verticals. I know one can minimize a lot of the convergence issue by shooting "level," but that doesn't always produce interesting perspectives or emphasize the keys to a space. Your mention of the 18mm follows my musing about the 20mm, but I wasn't sure if it would have the field of view I needed. I'll look into the availability. One question: what is your feeling about subtly correcting verticals and horizontals in post processing?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2228417">Larry Johnson</a>, Jun 29, 2014; 06:43 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Hey, Scott: I fully agree with the straight lines, especially if they're verticals. I know one can minimize a lot of the convergence issue by shooting "level," but that doesn't always produce interesting perspectives or emphasize the keys to a space. Your mention of the 18mm follows my musing about the 20mm, but I wasn't sure if it would have the field of view I needed. I'll look into the availability. One question: what is your feeling about subtly correcting verticals and horizontals in post processing?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Nothing wrong at all with fixing some minor perspective distortion in post processing. When I do interiors I have a little 3 axis spirit level I slide into the hot shoe to make sure that everything is level. You can get them on Fleabay for less than $10. They are essential if are going to do panoramas, interior or not.</p>

<p>Regarding the 20mm f/2.8 AIS vs the 18 f/3.5 AIS, the 20mm does have some barrel distortion compared to the 18mm but it is really only noticeable if you were to compare images taken from the same vantage point with each lens. I have both lenses and love them both. Below is one I took with my 20mm. The skewed vertical perspective adds quite a bit to this image!</p>

<p><a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/stm58/media/Suntrustbank.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/stm58/Suntrustbank.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo Suntrustbank.jpg"/></a></p>

 

<p>It appears this thread is ready to be "tied off." Thanks for all the thoughtful input the past couple of weeks. I've investigated every suggestion and weighed them against my plans (and my budget) and feel content with my decision. Regards.</p>

<p>Larry, let us know what worked for you, so we can all learn more.</p>

<p>Final decision was to pair the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR II with the D610 body. The noticeable distortion from the ultrawide views is lessened by specific lens correction software and a bit of post production editing. It's great just leaving one lens mounted and being able to cover most of the shoot satisfactorily.</p>