Prime better than zoom when photographing interiors?

[savas_kyprianides]

Does it make sense to purchase a fast prime wide lens for interiors? I am thinking that a

zoom is overkill, as you only go back so far when shooting rooms. Usually, you can't go back

far enough to get a lot into the picture. I am unconcerned about the geometry being altered,

therefore have no interest in tilt shift lenses. There is an opposing thought toward a zoom in

possibly using it outdoors, but at the cost of sufficient speed for the indoor shots.

[yakim_peled1]

1. How wide is wide enough? Really wide primes are extremely expensive.

 

2. Which body do you have? If it's a 1.6X DSLR, why not consider one of the wide APS zooms?

 

3. What is your budget?

 

4. Lenses are just tools and every photographer must choose the right lenses for him. The choice thus become very personal.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ulrich_brandl]

I don't think a zoom would be an overkill, it will replace a collection of primes you might need to handle rooms of different sizes. The main advantage of primes -speed - is not an issue for interiors (without people). If you shoot with an APS-C sensor DSLR I would recommend the 10-22mm, you will most likely work in the 12-18mm range where this lens has very low barrel distortions. The only primes I know in this range are the very expensive 14mm and third party 17mm lenses. With film or 35mm sensors a solution with primes (20 + 24mm) is more feasable, but here a 17-40mm will still be more economical.

 

Ulrich

[lightwriting by swapan]

Let us no forget that prime lenses are supposed to be better in picture quality in multiple aspects than zooms at the same focal length.

 

Also, being faster, you get more comtrol of DOF, when you need it.

 

 

Just my 2 cents

[savas_kyprianides]

What got me to thinking was a 24mm 1.4 L. It supposedly picks up great detail. 10-22 sound

very nice, but I am thinking about going full frame. I hadn't thought about various room

sizes! My initial vision was for doing small rooms. This is a consideration. I guess a tripod will

be necessary with a wide zoom less than 1.4.

[bennyboy]

With a little more detail we can offer better advice, are you literally shooting the room? Or will there be people in it? What are the lighing conditions like? You could save an awful lot of money and achieve results just as good if not better than some of the really fast wide lenses if lighting is good or if itsnt there are no people in shot, the 24 f/2.8 is optically superb and a fraction of the cost of the 14 f/1.4.

 

Remember though, 24mm isn't particularly wide on a 1.6X crop, it's actually within the range most would call normal. Wider prime glass will be extremely expensive. Will you definitely go full frame? If it's just a possibility get the 10-22 now and sell it if you do, it won't plummet in value. Otherwise if you'll be moving fairly soon, consider the 24 or maybe even a 17-40 F/4L or the 16-35 F/2.8L.

 

You really need to have a frank talk with yourself about what you want to achieve NOW and not hypothetically in a years time.

[edgreene]

Savas Kyprianides: <i>Does it make sense to purchase a fast prime wide lens for interiors</i>?<p>Yes. But not a "fast" (<i>no faster than f/2.8 at least</i>). But it should be a rectilinear lens.<p><i>I am thinking that a zoom is overkill, as you only go back so far when shooting rooms. Usually, you can't go back far enough to get a lot into the picture.</i><p>I use a 24mm for interiors, sometimes a 20mm, both rectilinear in design.<p><i>I am unconcerned about the geometry being altered, therefore have no interest in tilt shift lenses.</i><p>TS lenses usually aren't needed if the shooting platform is level. But a tilted camera will skew the image, even with rectilinear lenses. The same must be said for a 20mm, which I use only if the shoot cannot be accomplished by my 24mm.<p><i>There is an opposing thought toward a zoom in possibly using it outdoors, but at the cost of sufficient speed for the indoor shots.</i><p>I would forego the zoom in that any lens you might purchase for interiors would suffice outdoors.<br>If you shoot digital (you didn't say) a digital equivalent of 24mm would do for your interior lens.

[peter_white2]

For my 5D, I think the 16-35L is the best choice. It's extremely wide to moderately wide, has a fast f/2.8 aperture, and while expensive, it's not much more than your other options with that speed.

[KenPapai]

What Peter said; full frame + the 16-35 for indoors is as sweet as it can get. You won't find any compromises with that solution. Don't wait Savas, sounds like your need is imminent.

[conraderb]

the issue of prime v. zoom is not as big an issue if you use a tripod and shoot around f8 or f11, the sweet spot.

 

what body are you using? consider 10-22mm or the 16-35mm for a zoom, and stop down both to f8.

 

www.the-digital-picture.com has good reviews of canon lenses.

 

Conrad

[savas_kyprianides]

All very helpful viewpoints. Thank you. The need is not imminent as I own an old faux DSLR

that I have had for five years. (E-10) I guess not the entire room, but at least a full wall in a

room, maybe a bit more. No people in the picture. I will be deciding after PMMA whether I will

be getting a 20D; 20D replacement or a 5D. Obviously, it matters greatly which camera it

winds up being. The choices shown here certainly help point me in the right direction

whichever body is purchased. I checked prices on some of the ones mentioned. The fast L

series prime and zoom are very close in cost, give or take a few dollars. For f2.8, the 16-35

seems the widest assuming a full frame.

[edgreene]

The 5D solves a lot of problems for a long period of time. With the proper lens, you'd be shooting with the 5D for years, assuming it becomes your "interiors only " body.<br>Keeping the 5D would make it the one digital body you can amortize over along period of time, not like the slew of nearly useless 8 and under megapixel DSLRs out there.<br>Better still, you won't ever really have to "retire" it, at least not for five or more years.<br>After five years, it could be your "out the door" snapshooter, while for serious business you could take your EOS DXx, 20+ megapixel DVD-R "Robomachine". When you finished shooting, you would take out the DVD, slide it in a slot in your computer, which will download the images directly to Photoshop XX-CS, which in turn would automatically "post process" all the images (<i>according to your pre-programmed perferences</i>), giving you time to play a few downs of :"Madden 2010".

[michaelschrag]

Savas,

 

Here are some other ideas. If auotfocusing is not critical to your work then try some older manual focus lenses - primes. Bob Atkins has an informative page on his website http://bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

 

It is interesting to note that at the wide end, Canon L glass may not be the greatest. For example, see how the Sigma 15-30mm

stacks up against the Canon 16-35mm and the Canon 17-40mm (here: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html, here: http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/, here: http://www.burren.cx/photo/ultrawide/1530v1740.html and here: http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test). Also, at least from these tests, it appears that the contax 21mm distagon and the olympus Zuiko 21mm blow away the Canon L lenses. This last point gets more to your question. Should you use a zoom or a prime. Take a look at some of these sites and pictures contained therein, and decide. For me, after looking at the photos and a few more sites such as ephotozine (http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/index.cfm) I have concluded that for my purposes I will not order any Canon lenses on the wide end. Instead I am purchasing a Canon 5D (going from a Canon 20D)to go with 21 mm distagon that I got by good-luck. The 21mm Zuiko should be much easier to purchase, as compared with the distagon. An alternative is to buy the Nikon D200 and the Nikon 17-35mm AF-S.

[andrew robertson]

The cheapo Voigtlander 12, 15, and 21mm lenses blow away those expensive Leica and

Zeiss primes for shooting indoors, as they are non-retrofocus and won't have nearly as

much distortion.

 

You can get all three plus a Voigtlander Bessa R3A for less than one of the Zeiss or Leica

primes.

[dirk_dom]

I have a few wide angles, and they all make different images when I shoot a room:

 

* Sigma 14mm: A solid 100ﾰ coverage. Very sharp. Straight lines stay absolutely straight. This lens increases the depth of a room by a factor of more than two, which isn't so good if you want a natural rendering, but you do get the whole room, side walls and all. Extreme perspective. You have to hold this lens absolutely horizontal.

 

* Canon 20 - 35 mm L: Coverage from 94ﾰ to some 60ﾰ. Lens of extreme quality. A zoom is very nice for tight framing.

 

* Canon 24 mm F 1.4 L: I use this lens for shooting rooms with people in it, with the natural lights on. The very high speed of the lens allows for short shutter times and freezes all movement. Coverage is some 80ﾰ, I think. With this lens you get little wide - angle distortion, it is my standerd lens, instead of a 50 mm.

 

Hope this helps,

 

dirk.

[savas_kyprianides]

Ed, it does seem that the digitals are starting to last a little longer as time goes by. The price

/ performance equation is approaching that of today�s computers, assuming you get the

right equipment. And yes, there are cameras I am cavalier in handling today that I would have

been handling with kid gloves years before when new. I will check into Michael�s links. The

non-Canon lenses all sound great, so long as I understand certain technical limitations that

go along with them, such as means of attachment and manual focus. In a 1.6 crop, the 24

f1.4 L sounds like a great normal lens. It might be just wide enough for me on a full frame.

Thank you for all the suggestions.