Nikon Lenses for Architectural Photography

<p>I do a lot of architectural photography, mainly with a 4x5 large format camera. I would like to do some jobs with a nikon d700 that i can borrow from a friend.<br>

What lenses would you recommend? It is important for me that the lenses have as less distortion as possible. What about the old nikon manual focus lenses? I don`t need autofokus zoom lenses. But if the image quality is better (less distortion, sharper...) I would consider to buy some of these newer lenses. The new tilt shift lenses are a bit too expensive for me at the moment- (I`m a photo student).</p>

<p>The primes will almost always give you less distortion than the zooms, and manual focus lenses will work just fine if they're AI or AIS.</p>

<p>i believe you can buy a used 35mm tilt shift on ebay for around $400.</p>

<p>The 28mm and 35mm PC-Nikkors should do the job. Those were considered suitable for 35mm film SLRs, there's no reason why they wouldn't do the job with the FX sensor D700. Keep in mind that these are shift only, not tilt/shift. The 28mm and 35mm PC-Nikkors can adjust for rise/fall and lateral shifts, but not swings or tilts. Both are reasonably priced on the used market.</p>

<p>There may be third party tilt/shift wide angle lenses in the Nikon mount, but offhand I can't suggest any.</p>

<p>Any reasonably well corrected wide angle lens can be useful for architectural photography, altho' you'll need to make allowances to either avoid keystoning or correct it digitally. When using non-PC type wide angles I'll try to gain some elevation to avoid needing to tilt the camera upward. When photographing local buildings that are three stories or less in height, just setting up a tripod in the back of my pickup truck is enough. Indoors, using a stepladder will do the trick. With taller buildings I'll look for elevated vantage points in the surroundings, such as a nearby high rise or parking garage.</p>

<p>My favorite is the new 24mm/f3.5 PC-E, but it is expensive, especially if you don't own a D700 (or any Nikon FX body). The old 28mm/f3.5 PC should do a fine job. For architecture photography, shift is a lot more important than tilt.</p><div></div>

<p>It seems we're going down a road without considering a couple of things. First, what lenses do you use with 4x5? Second, what kind of architectural work do you do? I ask because I used to make a living in this area. If you're working with building exteriors or large buildings, then the 28mm PC is a great lens. But I found I was doing a lot of interior shots and needed something wider. I was using a 15mm Nikkor, but now the 14mm might be what you need. If you're a student, then maybe a 18mm is a good choice. I'd probably stay away from the zooms, unless someone here thinks the 17-35mm might work. I use a 18-35mm for a lot of shots, but at 18mm, there's too much barrel distortion on a full frame.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon 28mm PC shift lens I've kept for this purpose, and it does fine. The ideal lens for interiors is the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, but we're back to nearly $2,000. I've been using the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on a D300. It's a far better lens than my old Nikon 20mm f2.8 AFD was. The Nikon 18-35mm has very low distortion, is quite sharp, and is relatively inexpensive. I'd take a look at one of those. No shift, of course.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>None of the Nikon wide angles will be critically distortion free, so prepare to do some photoshopping if you want a similar level of distortion that is possible with a 4x5" view camera.<br>

That said, the new PC lenses, such as the 24/3.5, are very good. The bargain PC lens is a used 35/2.8, it can be had for a few hundred in good condition and is a good lens. The 28/3.5 is slightly more expensive and slightly worse performing, but still much more "bang for the buck" than the 24/3.5.</p>

<p>thanks guys, @ michael axel: I mainly use 65mm and 90mm lenses with my sinar 4x5. I shoot interior and exterior.<br>

It looks like it will cost a lot of money to get the same quality I get now with 4x5 film and an epson v750 scanner.<br>

I think I`ll save up a bit and then go for the new nikon 24 ts. Otherwise the lens costs as much as my whole 4x5 equipment.</p>

 

<p>I use a Nikon 28/3.5 PC and a Tamron SP 17/3.5 (for interiors). They both work well with a D700.</p>

<p>Marcus, As Michael Axel says, it would be helpful if you specified which 4x5 focal lengths you would use, so you could be told the 35mm Nikon equivalents. I believe the rule of thumb is to divide a large format focal length by 3. For example, the 35mm equivalent of a large format 90mm lens would be a 28mm. How wide or long do you usually shoot?</p>

<p>"I mainly use 65mm and 90mm lenses with my sinar 4x5"</p>

<p>I went to the D700 just to use my older 28PC and have found the results up ot 11x14 to be very good (using a tripod of course). <em> </em>I also use a 4x5 scanned on a 4990 but at 11x14 honestly can't see a difference (I would put myself at 8 on the pickey scale). The Nikon is much more convenient and light weignt although I still use the 4x5 when I want to go to a 65mm with shifts and because the I like the 4x5 Process. The biggest question is can you live with no shift beyond a 28pc (or 24pc if you can afford it) and can you live with a 11x14 (maybe 13x19) max print size.</p>

<p>The 24 setting on 14-24/2.8 Nikkor on FX picture is below:<br />This would be equivalent of the Nikkor 24 PC_E lens angle of view. Would it it be the same with the PC lens?</p>

<p>24 mm</p><div></div>

<p>Zoom at 14 mm.</p>

<p>Pictures taken withing few seconds as you can tall from the position of people.</p>

<p>24 PC lens is at $2000, while the 14-24/2,8 is at $1800 price. It would compliment the PC lens where the PC is not wide enough.</p><div></div>

<p>Unbelievable how much picture quality was lost while reducing picture size many times in Photoshop. Also observe JPG artifacts in the blue sky, that are not present in the large size picture. Just concentrate of the angle of view and preservation of parallel lines, or any distorion of closer objects. The original 14 mm angle picture is very sharp across the frame and distance from the lens, but not so in the small picture.</p>

<p>The 24/3.5 + D700 will give you very good quality, but nothing rivaling 4x5" with any level of competent scanning. You have to set your goals right. If you make money doing this and the lower quality of the D700 is acceptable, then it becomes a very good choice for working quickly and economically provided that you have the volume of work to pay for it.</p>

<p>I have read your reviews and comments with great interest.<br>

I have also read a review claiming that the Nikon PC lenses will not work to full capability on the Nikon D700 because the bottom of the flash unit interferes with the lense when trying to use the tilt feature of the lense. That is, the lense cannot be put into full tilt mode because of the flash unit.<br>

Have any of you Nikon D700/PC lense users found this to be the case?<br>

Riccardo</p>

<p>I have a Nikon PC-e lens (85mm) and love it, but get some strange artifacts (see picture). Anyone recognize these? There are horizontal lines at the right hand side partly in the orange and on the wood. This happens when I tilt the lens. <br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2713/4207161096_30f0d839d9.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>I noticed a lot of discussion here of extreme wide angle lenses for interiors. Interiors is too broad a category and needs to be narrowed a bit when considering which lenses are most appropriate. Interiors may be commercial or residential and may be more concerned with the architecture or the furnishings and decorating. I shot residential interiors for national publications for many years and could count on one hand the times I needed anything wider than the equivalent of a 28mm on a 35mm camera. When you are trying to shoot residential interiors and create a natural perspective in a whole room shot (as opposed to a vignette or detail shot) the sign of a photographer that does not specialize in interiors is the use of an extremely wide angle lens. It exaggerates the foreground elements to a degree that is distracting and typically includes too much ceiling or floor. To properly shoot most rooms for editorial purposes, it will require multiple shots, each one containing a reference element that ties it to the others and allows the viewer to mentally piece the room together and understand the layout.</p>

<p>For an architectural emphasis however, provided you are careful with foreground furnishings (if you must include them) these restrictions don't apply and you can go as wide as needed, but again, be careful not to let the wide angle effect become a gimmick.</p>

<p>About lenses and perspective: Many photographers fail to consider what controls perspective. It is not the lens. Technically, there is no "wide angle perspective" or "telephoto compression." The perspective is controlled by camera to subject distance and the lens is merely determining how much of the scene before you to include within the confines of the frame. For instance, let's say you shoot a scene with a 20mm lens, and then without moving, shoot it again with a 50mm lens and a 300mm lens. Pretend you have no resolution limits in your 20mm shot and now you crop it to the exact boundaries of the 50mm shot and blow it up. Do the same to match the boundaries of the 300mm shot and blow it up. These shots would be indistinguishable from your 50mm and 300mm shots. I think this is important because in scouting out your shots, some photographers pop on the lens in search of a shot and keep changing lenses and camera position to hone in on the final shot, but it's much faster if you understand you use a director's loupe. You stand where you like the perspective and point of view and then use the push/pull zoom on the loupe to mask the shot down to what you want to include and read the focal length off the barrel of the loupe. Admittedly, on telephoto shots you ending up looking at a pretty small image in the loupe because you've masked it down to a tiny area, but you get used to it.</p>

<p>All that said, I have a D700 and would suggest the 28 shift and the 35 shift to get started. You can add the 24 shift/tilt later if budget allows and you would find it useful, and same for the longer length shifts. Schneider made a 28mm shift for Leica and Nikon that is an incredible lens if you can find one, and it will cost you much more than the Nikkor.</p>