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

<p>I would appreciate any input and suggestions on what you've found that combines excellent image quality with utility for interior work. One of the lenses that keeps turning up is the 16-35mm f/4G AF-S VR. I'd like to work with a zoom rather than juggling a kit of three lenses, and I suspect while a group of primes might yield superior results, the cost might be twice as high. What do you recommend?</p>

<p>Can you tell us whether you're DX or FX? It makes a HUGE difference at the wide end, especially in smaller rooms and buildings.</p>

<p>Now-a-days zoom lenses come very close and can even surpass primes. Keep in mind perspective control lenses (expensive) that will give you control of straight lines in a tight area.</p>

<p>(FYI, when you post a question, sometimes the system is very slow at receiving it, have patience next time after you click the Submit button, it will happen eventually.)</p>

<p>Cannot think in something better than the 14-24. I`m using it for the very same task since its release.<br /> Perspective control lenses are nice, but not as wide, easy and fast to work with. Usually, I don`t need full sized quality pics, most are for documentation (big pics that almost never go out), advertising and web use (small ones are fine), so in my case, I can always crop, so lens shift, rise or fall is not at all a must have. And I also wonder about how useful is lens tilt in the real ("state") life with a FX camera.<br /> I`m also pleased with the f2.8 speed, many times I`m too lazy to take flashes and use it hand held at the widest aperture (available light). The VR in the 16-35 will be great here (three? stops gain), but you (actually, I) will miss the wide end at 14mm, and in this scenarios I don`t really need more than 24mm (well, for outdoor shots 35mm will be useful at small villas, though).</p>

<p>The 14-24 is excellent for this type of work.</p>

<p>The 16-35mm f/4G AF-S VR has some fairly high barrel distortion at the short end which might be problematic when used in architectural-type photography - it's higher at 16mm than the 14-24 at 14 (where it's fairly severe too). The Tokina 16-28 has less distortion but it's more wavy in nature and hence not easy to correct. The Tokina 17-35/4 also about the same level of distortion - both Tokina's suffer from rather high LoCA (easily correctable though). Both the Nikon 17-35/2.8 and the 18-35/3.5-4.5 AF-S display higher distortion than the two Tokinas.</p>

<p>Quite frankly - given what some of these lenses cost - I would go with a D7100 and the Tokina 11-16/2.8 for that particular application. Low distortion and vignetting, and fairly even sharpness distribution over the entire frame once stopped down a stop or two. Typical for Tokina is the high LoCA - which is easy enough to correct for though.</p>

<p>The only thing that would put me off the 14-24 (which I own, and I too have used it for what could generously be called architectural images) is the distortion. Well, and the price. That's on FX - you're paying for a lot of unused image area on DX. For a budget option, I'd just take a fish-eye, take several shots, de-fish the results, and merge them in software. If only we had a Nikon version of the Canon 17mm T-S...<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, the Zeiss 15mm (and maybe even more so the 18mm, though that's less sharp) seem to have less distortion.</p>

<p>I'm with Jose and Ilkka that the 14-24mm is the right tool for the job - plus a high tripod to get you at half wall/ceiling height and prevent having to tilt the camera up. The barrel distortion, which can be quite noticeable as Andrew suggests, can be rectified in post-processing. And if you want to do exteriors properly, then the 24mm PC-E Nikkor is the right lens to get. It'll also do interiors very well if space isn't that much of an issue, or if you don't mind stitching images together.</p>

<p>On full-frame, in a tight space you need a 17mm lens or shorter; then the >90 degree horizontal coverage can still take in a whole room if the camera is placed in one corner. With DX you're basically stuffed if you don't have anything shorter than 12mm - and there aren't that many good quality ultrawide zooms to choose from.</p>

<p>I've used old 28 and 35mm PC Nikkors quite successfully on digital. They can be picked up reasonably cheaply and save a lot of post-processing in straightening up large interior shots if the trapezoid distortion got by pointing the camera up is objectionable to the client. They can be useful in places as big as a church, for example, but in smaller interiors you often need something a lot wider.</p>

What type of architecture? What end purpose at what size? ZDo you shoot raw (NEF) or JPEG? In the extreme wide

angle range (below 21mm) the best choice is the 14-24mm f/2.8G .

<p>A non-trivial consideration is that the Nikkor 14mm and the 14-24 won't take filters so the huge front element is vulnerable to damage depending on how careful you are. Both the Zeiss 15mm and the 16-35 take filters though large ones. The 16-35 also has vibration reduction though a lower max f-stop. I've been agonizing over this choice for while and there are no clear winners, in my opinion</p>

<p>Well, the Zeiss and the 14-24 are much sharper, at least at the wide end and wide apertures, than the 16-35 (or the old 14mm prime, which is not really competitive with modern designs). The 16-35 is pretty good, but more so at the longer end. The Samyang sharpens up well on stopping down, but isn't particularly competitive at f/2.8. You <i>can</i> filter the 14-24, but it's unwieldy, and I've never bothered (although I've had to get some of the Niagara river cleaned off it by Nikon). With the dynamic range of modern sensors, I'm not so fussed about filtering, although a polariser can make quite a difference to windows. A tilt-shift also means you can arrange not to be seen in reflections, though so does using a wider lens and cropping. No clear winners, indeed.</p>

<p>One thing good about sticking with an OE manufacturer lens such as the 16-35 is the availability of lens specific distortion correction modules in software such as DXO. There seem to be less available correction modules with 3rd party lenses. Have not checked lately to see what is available.</p>

<p>I don't spend a lot of time correcting WA lens distortion, but the DXO raw seems to do a good job with not much effort on my end.</p>

<p>Architecture? Nikon 24mm PCE (shift lens.) </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I'm just starting to read the replies from overnight. Sorry for leaving out the key piece of info for you all. This lens will be paired with a <strong>Nikon D610</strong>.</p>

<p>Technique is just as important as the lens choice, mainly positioning and leveling the camera, and most often using a camera support together with a higher f-stop to get some depth of field.</p>

<p>A 4-segment leg Series 2 Gitzo carbon tripod and the latest Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED would serve you very well. If you must shoot handheld, the 16-35G VR you mentioned in the opening post would be better.</p>

<p>Also, use in-camera distortion correction, it works remarkably well. And, don't be afraid of shooting JPEG-Fine, most likely plenty good-enough for real estate work.</p>

<p>My 2¢</p>

<p>Just read another timely question from the responses. I use a CF Gitzo four-section tripod that, when fully extended and on my Bogen 3047 head, puts the camera about 6'6" tall. I've shot a reflex Medium Format (6x7) for fifteen years so my technique is pretty solid. The interiors on my list range from nice residences to moderate corporate and commercial spaces. There have been a couple of church tasks, as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 16-35 is pretty good, but more so at the longer end</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of sharpness it's actually weakest overall at the long end - though I agree that at 16mm corner performance is a bit of a misnomer unless stopped down to f/11. Optically, it seems to be a wash with the less expensive AF-S 18-35 which isn't quite as good in the center but often better in the corners; one definitely pays a premium for two additional mm and VR. The 14-24 seems indeed to be the gold standard when even sharpness over the entire frame is desired.</p>

<p>I second Kent's advice regarding the 24mm PC-E. It never leaves my D3S and I use it for 99% of all my work. For those times that I need a wider shot I use the 18-35mm on my D800. Its almost as sharp as the 14-24. However, it too has quite a bit of distortion. But now (from all the great advice I received on photo.net) I have been able to correct the distortion easily with a combination of DXO and LR.</p>

If you don't want distortion, the Nikkor 15mm F3.5 is your lens. Note that the link "Link" is for the Mir website on the Nikkor. The second link is for a prior PN thread on the 15mm.a

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/15mm.htm

 

"Technical Highlights: * Panoramic 110° picture angle allows you to shoot in the confined space of cramped interiors; it also produces spectacular results in landscape, architectural or virtually any type of photography. * Straight-line rendition of subjects with virtually no distortion. * Immense depth of field practically eliminates the need to focus at smaller f/stops and moderate or greater distances."

 

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Km5u

<p>Jay, that old 15mm f/3.5 lens fetches around $1000 used. For a single focal length that's not much of a bargain compared to the extra flexibility of the 14-24mm Zoom-Nikkor. Also all the reviews of this lens are less than enthusiastic about its sharpness and being prone to flare. Even " the one who shall remain forever nameless on these pages" (K.R.) gives it a poor review, except for its lack of distortion, and he gives rave reviews to almost <em>anything and everything</em>.</p>

<p>Yes, it would be nice to think there was a perfect lens out there that had no distortion or vignetting and gave a perfectly sharp image from corner to corner at maximum aperture, but unfortunately no such animal exists. (Apart from the distortion, the 14-24 comes pretty close though).<br>

You do your research, pays your money and settle for whatever compromises you think you can live with. If you're sensible, you also thoroughly check out the sample of lens you've just bought for decentring and other faults as soon as you get it as well. That's after buying from a reputable dealer that'll exchange the lens without question if found to be faulty.</p>

There's always the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower etc 14mm f2.8 for 300 bucks.

<blockquote>

<p>that old 15mm f/3.5 lens fetches around $1000 used. For a single focal length that's not much of a bargain compared to the extra flexibility of the 14-24mm Zoom-Nikkor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If there is a 15mm that could compete with the 14-24 than it would be the Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 lens - distortion is definitely lower on the prime. It certainly is no bargain though - costing about $1000 more than the 14-24. From the DxO testing it appears that the corners would be lagging behind the Nikkor at all apertures. The Samyang 14/2.8 seems to be doing quite well in terms of sharpness, but has much higher distortion and LoCA compared to the Zeiss.</p>

<p>The Samyang has good sharpness <i>at small apertures</i> - not so much, wide open. That doesn't necessarily rule it out in this situation. My 14-24 seems to have quite severe field curvature despite Nikon checking it out, so I'm not holding that as perfection either. Not that I'm planning to sell it...</p>

<p>Put me in the 24 PCE group. You are experienced otherwise I would not recommend it. It was designed to do exactly what you are doing. </p>

<p>If you have shot 4X5 before you know what the experience is like.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find 24mm simply not wide enough. Many of my indoor pics are taken at 14mm (14-24/2.8).</p>

<p>About distortion, if you look for distortion, no doubt you`ll find it. I don`t use to need straight leveled shots of squared walls at very close distances, the "box/frame type" kind of shot where distortion became specially obvious. Just shoot at an angle to make it much less noticeable.</p>

<p>The 14-24 show hefty distortion at 14mm (just like most ultra wides), but at 18mm distortion is comparable to modern primes, and at 20-24mm it is even lower than many good other primes and zooms.</p>

<p>I understand someone would want a straight frontal shot of a villa, so it is outdoors, simply use a cheap 50 or the 14-24 at 20-24mm, where distortion is at <em>very low</em> levels. If distortion have to be at an <em>absolute</em> zero level, use a short macro lens for the task (55, 60).</p>

<p>For indoor, distortion free pics, the problem could be in the vertical lines (wall corners, door posts, etc.). Here simply set the 12-24 to 20-24mm, and <em>if needed</em>, apply distortion correction in NX2 to remove any trace of distortion. Mind you, the camera should be perfectly leveled here. Problem solved.</p>

<p>I wonder if the pics will be used for art galleries (!), or for a real state agency (more likely, I think). If the latter, for advertising and promotional work, I things should be practical, comfortable and relatively fast to work with, so I`d try to avoid enormous complications and expenses.</p>