Need Sharp, Wide Angle with Low Distortion

I'd like some input from lens users if possible, especially if you are

experienced with commercial product photography and interiors. I have

two upcoming product photography jobs where I'll be shooting in

relatively tight spaces. My current wide angle zooms probably aren't

going to cut it due to distortion at the wide end. I'm also concened

about sharpness. I plan to shoot at f11-f16. The furniture groups

I'll be shooting require a deep depth of field.

 

I've looked at a few lenses, but it's hard to find something that

mgiht work in my favor. If I can find a rectilinear lens at

16mm-18mm, I'd be happy. Should I be considering a tilt shift lens?

 

How does Nikon's 20mm perform? I have access to one if needed.

 

I'm not opposed to off brand lenses, but I need to stick with Nikon

compatible gear. I'm shooting DSLRs, so a 1.5 crop factor is a

concern and that's why I'm trying to stick with a lens in the 16-20mm

range.

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on how I should spend the money.

I'm a wedding shooter, and wide angle distortion is less of a concern

to me when shooting people. But my commercial client list is growing,

so it's time to make additional purchases.

 

Chris

How wide (tight) do you need to go? The 12-24/4 zoom is nice, but I find it has pretty noticable barrel distortion south of the 24mm focal length. I wish I could comment on the 20mm, but I can't. I used to use my 24mm AFD more and was pretty happy with it, but that only get's you to 36mm (equiv.) on a 1.5 crop factor DSLR.

 

Best of luck.

 

Scott

I have a 17/3.5 Tamron Adaptall (manual focus) that's sharp with very little barrel distortion. However it's not very contrasty and is prone to veiling flare tho' fairly resistant to ghosting. An excellent buy, tho', if you don't mind using a manual focus lens.

I just photographed the interior of a small house for a real estate agent. I am not a

professional, and the photos are only going to be used for a newspaper ad and an open-

house fact sheet. I used a Nikkor 20/2.8D and a Nikkor 17-35/2.8 D ED IF AF-S lens.

Everything was shot using a Nikon N90s, so my results are confined to film use. I used

three Lowel Tota lights for fill, used Kodak tungsten-balanced film, and shot everything on

a tripod with a cable-release at f/8-16. The 20mm, with its fixed focal length required a

little more "leg work" to get the composition just right. The results were great: no

distortion (other than what you get with wides), sharp photos, good contrast and colors.

The 17-35 was, frankly, disappointing. Shot wide open, there was pretty severe distortion:

the edges (which I had very carefully lined up perfectly straight in the viewfinder) bowed

quite a bit. The natural distortion of a super-wide is more pronounced at the 17mm focal

length. Sharpness was not quite so sharp. Color and contrast were OK, given the

parameters of lighting and film used. I want to point out that, when composing the shots, I

was most often in the 20 to 24mm range of focal lengths, and not wide open at 17mm as I

had suspected I might be. I walked away from this experience with the following lessons

learned: I shoot at less than super-wide focal lengths, you cannot have too much fill light,

and your mixture of natural and artificial light is the most critical element, bar none. Good

luck.

Thanks for the suggestions!

 

Scott - I would like to remain at 20mm or wider due to the crop factor, prime lens preferred over a zoom. I probably won't have to deal with the most severe distortion, since my camera won't include the edges of the image circle if I'm using a lens designed for full frame images. I'm leaning heavily toward the 20mm f2.8. I'm also looking at the Tamron 17mm. Some photoshop distortion correction may be necessary, but I'd rather get it right in the camera the first time around.

 

I'll be shooting in a warehouse setting. I should have some room to back up if needed.

 

Wasn't there a Tamron or Tokina 17mm rectilinear lens produced for 35mm cameras at some point?

Hi Chris

 

I have the 20mm and on a digital it is not all that wide. FOV same as a 30mm lens. I also have a 14mm Tamron 2.8 that is a very nice lens. Sharp with great color and very well put together.

 

When I went shopping for the 14 I tested the Tamron against the Nikon 14.

 

The store I went to had them in stock (Colonial Photo and Hobby) The Tamron had less CA then the Nikon. The test was shot on my D100 So if you can, take a ride down there and do your own test.

 

I have also used the Nikon 12-24 and it is a great lens but a little slow. I like shooting at the lowest ISO I can.

 

If you like hit me with an email and I will send you a couple of shots from the 14 to look at.

 

Michael

If you were able to work with film, I'd say you should look at the Cosina/Voigtlander wide angle lenses for Leica thread mount. The 15mm f/4.5, 21mm f/4, and 25mm f/4 lenses are all quite sharp (by reputation, anyway) and well corrected. I have the 21, and straight lines say unfailingly straight -- much better than the 20mm and 24mm Nikkors I've used.

 

You can pick up a Bessa L body to mount them on for $50 or less, I would guess. You wouldn't have to worry about the crop factor, but film would slow you down some.

Tokina did in fact make a 17mm f3.5 lens for film cameras. I own it, and I prefer it to the Tamron. I also own the Nikkor 20mm f2.8. The Nikkor is very slightly sharper and less distorted, but of course, the Tamron is also wider and less expensive (can be found on ebay for around $100-150 in AI mount). But the distortion for either lens will be much reduced in the DX-sensor crop than in a full film frame.

I have to second the vote for the 17mm 3.5 Tokina MF lens. It is excellent and a bargain. I bought mine new for $225 years ago at B&H, and it can be found used for less than $100. It is sharp, contrasty, and well-corrected. All in all, I found it a little wide for my use and sold it in favor of a 20mm lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Also, Sigma made a well regarded 14mm rectilinear lens for the 35mm format.

Chris: Would the mint condition 12-24 at Orlando Camera Exchange on Fairbanks just off I-4 be what you are looking for? It was still there yesterday.

 

Greg, the owner, is really an easy guy to deal with. Just bring real cash.

Michael - I was just at Colonial, and didn't see the lens. Darn! But I'll be there Saturday a.m. and will specifically ask about it. They also had a D200 there, but it was the Nikon rep's camera. Darn again! My credit card would have been out in a flash.

 

Bob - I'll check at the camera exchange tomorrow. Thanks for the tip! Never been there - didn't even know it existed, and I shoot engagement sessions right around the corner from there all the time. Since most of my product shooting requires some depth of field, the 12-24mm might do the trick. I just familiarized myself with distortion correction in PS, but it needs to be perfect for some commercial applications. It **might** be good enough for now if I refine my technique.

 

I'll also check out the Sigma.

 

And - whoever suggested film - no way :-). I went digital and never looked back. It's faster, but it's about the same challenge level. I just cut out the negative scanning step, and I'm happy!

 

Thanks again, everyone!

Chris,

 

Shameless plug here but I have a Nikon AFD 20mm f2.8 lens in excellent condition I am selling. Email me if interested.

 

I can't comment on distortion with it as I used it for photographing scenes with people and landscapes. I have not used it since buying a D70 and the 18-70 kit zoom.