getting an architectural lens

[eric_kaing1]

<p>I'm somewhat of a beginner still in photography and my current set up is a Nikon D3000 with the basic kit and 55-200m zoom lens. I was able to save up a bit of cash and was wondering what should be next lens be. Considering that I am an architect intern, I am leaning towards getting a wider angle lens, but am unsure on which would be best. <br>

Should it be a fixed prime lens or a wide zoom lens. My cost range is around 600 max, but I would like to be a bit lower so I cam purchase some much needed filters and other small things.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>A perspective control lens would be ideal, but is extremely expensive.</p>

<p>The main problem with the kit lens is its slow aperture, but such lenses will inevitably have a great deal of barrel distortion - it can be corrected, but it's always good to get these things done in the camera.<br>

The 10 to 12mm to ~30mm ultra wide zooms are nice, but not so much for architectural use. There aren't many choices in prime wide angles for APS-C cameras.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>There's an Arax 35mm f/2.8 tilt-shift that's exactly on the limit of your budget (from kievcamera.net - may be cheaper elsewhere). It may be a bit painful to use on a D3000 (it won't meter for a start), but I just wanted to point out that it wasn't completely out of the question. I have one of these, but I can't say I'm an enormous fan, mostly because of the ergonomics (and partly because the shift and tilt are fixed at 90 degrees and can't be adjusted); the optics aren't all that special either. But it is a third of the price of the alternatives.<br />

<br />

Most wide angles have significant distortion, which is potentially inconvenient for architecture. You could try to get around that with a macro lens (perhaps the Nikon 40mm?), though if you want it for other macro uses you may find working distance helps, and that you'd prefer something like the 90mm Tamron. Alternatively, you could embrace the distortion - the Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fish-eye is within your budget.<br />

<br />

However, I'd say wait until you know what photo you'd like to take that your current equipment won't let you. If the first thing you find you want is a fish-eye view, already having blown your budget on a macro would be sad.<br />

<br />

Do you have a tripod? Flash? Depending on your interests, they may be a worthwhile investment as well.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope that helps.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As I found out with a PC-Nikkor 35mm (available used still), a 35mm PC lens is really just a normal lens on an APS-C (DX) camera body. I'd get a old PC-Nikkor over an Arax, but neither is ideal. The PC-Nikkor 28mm would be a little better, but is really too long on your camera for this kind of work. I think it goes on eBay for around $7-800, but some lucky, and patient, folks have got it for under $400.</p>

<p>You need at least something like 24mm to make it do any sort of useful PC work on your body. There is a PC-E Nikkor 24mm but, again, it's very pricey.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I use a 'normal' wide angle zoom for many of my wide angle architecture shots. While a perspective control lens is the ideal tool for getting pleasing architecture shots a normal wide angle lens can be used. The main difficulty with a wide angle lens is that if you tilt the lens upwards, as is often required in architecture, then you get the verticals converging. There are two main ways to avoid this convergence.<br /> The first is to take the shot with the camera level or just slightly tilted up. The verticals will then look fairly natural. However the disadvantage here is that you will also have a lot of empty foreground. This can sometimes be filled creatively but often it can't. Sometimes the height of the building forces one to tilt the camera up, so getting back to the converging verticals problem.<br /> The simplest way to overcome converging verticals is to learn to apply perspective adjustments at the editing stage. The 'shift' part of Tilt/Shift lens effects, which is what architectural shots usually need, can be applied in editing. Below is an example of a wide angle shot showing a fair amount of verticals convergence. I had to tilt the camera upwards to include the rather excellent sky. The top part of the shot shows the image as it came from the camera while the lower bit shows the uncropped shot adjusted for a (hopefully!) more pleasing look with more upright verticals. One would obviously then go on to crop the shot.<br /> So I suggest that something like Sigma 10-20mm wide angle zoom might be worth considering, bearing in mind that to get the most out of this for architecture you would also need to master adjusting the perspective in photoshop during the editing stage.</p><div></div>

[eric_kaing1]

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I took a photography class a while back, and was lucky enough to get to play around with a PC lens, but like many of you stated, those are a bit outta my price range. As for what Colin had stated doing the post work after the camera is no biggie for me. As strange as it might sound, I am very good with Photoshop have to use a digital camera within a program to complete architectural renderings and post edit it to make it look nicer.<br>

That being the case and I don't mine doing the post edit is the Sigma 10-20mm the best option for me?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Depending on what “architecture” you generally want to Photograph and as you are adept at PP, you might give more consideration to spending the funds on LIGHTING (for interior shots) as the 18mm wide angle FoV of the Kit Lens might do just fine –with a bit of stitching, when required.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Considering your needs, I vote for a regular wide-angle zoom plus digital darkroom corrections of (1) lens geometric distortion (barrel, pincusion) and (2) perspective distortion (which a tilt-shift lens <em>with enough movement</em> would allow you to avoid). Toward that end, and under your budget, maybe get a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6D EX DC HSM ($429) or a Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II ($449).</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Hi Eric, I don't have personal experience of the wide angle zoom lenses you are considering so I can't give a recommendation. However what I would do is make a list of the possible candidate lenses (such as those Dave has mentioned in the post above this) then compare them on such review sites as Photozone (very consistent testing and in-depth evaluatiuon) , Fredmranda (public responses so discount the worst and best reviews and look at the average), and any other unbiased reviews I could lay my hands on.<br /> http://www.photozone.de/<br /> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/<br /> best of luck with both the photography and your architecture studies!</p>

[sgust]

<p>I have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens and am pretty impressed with it. While it has what seems to be a very limited zoom range, at those focal lengths every mm difference is noticeable. I got it because I wanted to be able to take handheld shots in low lighting, so the large aperture was important. If you don't expect to need to do so, then the Sigma would be a better choice due to the wider zoom range. Here are a few images that I took with the Tokina lens.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16940115&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16940337&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16506439&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16501234</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>To sort of re-cap<br>

With any rectilinear wide angle, if you are careful to keep the sensor plane parallel to the object being photographed, you won't get the "keystone" distortion, but of course you have to move far away to get the top in. This can be corrected for by cropping, but you lose pixels when you do this.<br>

Using things like the "lens correction" capabilities of Photoshop, for one of the best of these, can correct the appearance of the tilted back image, but it does so by "stretching" pixels, so for critical work a tilt/shift lens of some kind is worth every penny of their incredibly expensive prices.</p>

<p>Of course, there is what is known as "good enough for government work" - and as a student you can certainly get by with less than ideal.</p>

<p>Here are two pictures taken with a Canon TS-E 17mm (the Canon version of tilt/shift). The top is with the camera tilted to get the building in; the second, the Photoshop correction; and the third, taken with the shift and tilt used. At this scale, you can't see too much difference (gummint work), but at full size the quality differences are visible.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Well, you might be in luck, Eric! A couple of folks have demonstrated how perspective distortion can be corrected in software.</p>

<p>Consider that:<br>

(a) Perspective distortion is more of a problem with wide-angle lenses than with normal and telephoto lenses.<br>

(b) Correction in software will decrease the resolution of the image to some degree. Not always a problem, but a consideration.</p>

<p>A solution that will working some cases is:<br>

(1) Photograph the building in pieces with your 55-200.<br>

(2) Stitch the pieces together into a panoramic image. This images will have a lot of pixels, and if you focus your lens accurately, it will contain a lot of detail.<br>

(3) Apply perspective corrections to your stitched file. The file contains a lot of detail, so if you lose some due to perspective correction, who cares?</p>

<p>And the best part is that you don't have to buy a new lens! I would suggest PTGui for stitching and Lightroom for perspective correction. The two together cost a lot less than Photoshop, and they should do most of what you need them to do.</p>

<p>Good luck!!!</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>The other day I saw a Harblei (sp ?) that was 65mm shift lens from Russia, but with your sensor that would be close to 100mm (35 equiv). This was on CL in case you might be interested.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[western_isles]

I have a Nikon 24mm PC lens and find it is excellent. Initially I used it on a D200 and it worked very well but with some limitations on the amount of rise caused by the overhang of the flash housing. Why do camera makers include such a useless piece of kit on a quality camera? Rant over.

 

 

The only other problem would be that on a APS-C camera the focal length becomes 35mm (on a 24mm FX lens) but I never really found this to be a problem given the quality of the lens.

 

 

I would try and get a good used Nikon. They used to make a PC lens I think at 24mm before the current lens in their line up and I would think you could get one within your budget. Then again the Arax, as mentioned previously, should also be a contender but I have no experience of those lens'.

 

 

IMHO prime lens give superior results especially with architectural subjects.

 

 

Good luck with your photography.

 

Just searched and I was wrong/right. Nikon used to make a 35mm PC lens not a 24mm which is their new lens. On a cropped sensor that would make it about 50mm. I found an example on eBay for about $500. I have no connection with the seller!

 

 

Google Nikon 35mm PC

[paul_wheatland]

<p>The 24mm Soligor or Vivitar with TX-T4 Nikon F mount is a very economical manual focus lens worth looking for on the big auction site. I have the Vivitar version f2.8 and it works well on all my Nikons film and digital. The dilemma of "keystoning" can be solved in post processing with appropriate software. I'm never afraid of using older manual focus optics for these special projects. I'm amazed when some photographers want or need Autofocus using wide angle optics for static scenes(just my narrow opinion).</p>

[eric_kaing1]

<p>thanks guys for all the helpful responses. In terms of the what kind of architecture I will be shooting; I will mostly focusing on exterior architectural or massive interiors like cathedral spaces, so I don't believe I need an flash just yet. On a side note I just found an Tamaron SP 90mm F/2.8 macro lens laying around my house. What would this lens best be used for? <br>

Dan I already have Photoshop when I purchase a school version for my projects a while back so, it is already a part of my arsenal. I also never knew 24mm PC lens could cost as little as most I've seen is around the couple thousands range and will have to consider this as also an option. <br>

I know theres a difference from a full body to the type of camera I have and was wondering what would be the stepping down in that case for a 24mm PC lens or up as I am still learning?<br>

In terms of purchasing the lens itself, what kind of sites do you guys recommend me visiting and how do I make sure I get the best deal as possible.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The Tamron SP 90mm is a real classic. 'SP' is Tamron-speak for their best quality and the 90mm f2.8 has a very good reputation. Try it out and see if it lives up to that reputation. Older Tamron lenses used to have a special adaptor which could be changed to allow the lens to be used on a wide variety of cameras. Lately they seem to have gone to make-specific mounts so you will need to check it fits your Nikon.<br /> It will be a short telephoto on your camera so could be used for head and shoulders shots or for good detail. The large aperture will also allow you to achieve a blurred background easily. It will be able to focus closely ('macro') and so be good for bugs and butterflies etc. If it fits your camera try taking similar shots with the Tamron and your 55-200 lens set to 90mm. You should be able to see a difference.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The Tamron, as Colin says, has been around for a long time, and it is a classic and high-quality macro. On a APS-C body, the 1.5X factor makes it even better for macro work. If it is the older manual focus, that is not such a problem for macro work, where you are close in with shallow depth of field anyhow. </p>

<p>It's also a superb mid-range (I would say) telephoto on APS-C, but not too long for good close-in portrait work. If it has a flaw for portrait work it might be that it is too sharp and detailed, but you can always pop on a diffusing filter, if needed.</p>

<p> </p>