Wide lenses for architectural photography

[Aziat]

Hello,

I'm going to purchase 10D soon. So I'm having a very hard time selecting the set of lens for the camera. I take an architectural photos and in my case it is usually forbidden to use flash and tripod inside a buildings. So, I need a wide lenses with F at least 2.8. As the photos should be as sharp as possible at wide end, I'm looking for primes first. Thus, what do you think about my choice? Can I minimize a price of the set? Are there alternative high-performance lenses, say Sigma or Tamron?

For interiors:
1). EF 15 mm F2.8 and
2). EF 20 mm F2.8 USM

For outdoors:
3). EF 17-40 mm F4L USM (zoom)

Could you tell me the link at full-size sample photos?
???

Aziat

[hkelsey]

I have the Canon 20mm 2.8. I do a lot of architecture, machinery, manufacturing pictures with a Canon 10D. The lens is very sharp. If you want a wider angle, I just take 2 or 3 shots holding the camera as parallel as possible and rotate about 1/2 the shot each time. When you stitch these together you can get up to a 180° picture.

The best part is the picture is not like a wide angle such as 14mm lens or so. These lenses throw the center of the picture a way back. With the stitched shot you get pretty well what you see turning your head, and the center foreground is in the right place.

I used to do a lot of travel and usually only carried a Leica M3 with the 21mm Super Angulon and 90mm Tele-Elmarit. The Canon 20mm is like the 21mm Angulon. Now I am going to get a Canon 50mm 1.4.

[rdenney]

hkelsey wrote:
I have the Canon 20mm 2.8. I do a lot of architecture, machinery, manufacturing pictures with a Canon 10D. The lens is very sharp. If you want a wider angle, I just take 2 or 3 shots holding the camera as parallel as possible and rotate about 1/2 the shot each time. When you stitch these together you can get up to a 180° picture.

The best part is the picture is not like a wide angle such as 14mm lens or so. These lenses throw the center of the picture a way back. With the stitched shot you get pretty well what you see turning your head, and the center foreground is in the right place.

I used to do a lot of travel and usually only carried a Leica M3 with the 21mm Super Angulon and 90mm Tele-Elmarit. The Canon 20mm is like the 21mm Angulon. Now I am going to get a Canon 50mm 1.4.

In what way is the Canon 20 like the 21mm SA? When I shoot at the 20mm focal length, it's more like a 35mm lens on a film camera. To sweep up the scene like that Super Angulon, I need a 14.

Stitching shots will create panoramic projection (if you use the appropriate software, like Panotools). Otherwise, perspective will have angular cusps at the stitch points, which is often usable for many subjects but not, in my view, for architecture. Panoramas are nice but not for bread-and-butter architectural work.

Two shots with a shift lens can be stitched and maintain rectilinear projection, but it will cost as much as a decent 14.

For the original poster, I'd recommend getting the Tamron f/2.4 14mm rectilinear lens. You'll only use the middle of it. I don't recall how much it distorts, but you won't notice it except for one-point perspectives. The 14 will behave like a 22.

The 15mm f/2.8 Canon lens is a full-frame fisheye. Definitely NOT what you'd want for architecture, except for special effects. If it IS what you want, consider the $150 16mm Zenitar fisheye. It's all manual and made in Russia but it works great and will save you some significant coin for that occasoinal shot.

The only choice for real wide angles in Canon is the 14L, which costs a coupla grand. I'm sure it's better than the Tamron (which I'm sure is better than my Sigma), but for the money it ought to be.

A rectilinear 15 that is a bit cheaper would be nice, but I don't know of one. The 14's are the closest equivalent to the 24mm lens on a full-frame camera, at least for now.

Frankly, if shooting wide angle were a priority for me using a digital camera, I would wait for a 10D-priced body with a full-size sensor. I figure the wait will only be a couple of years. Or if waiting wasn't an option, I would (gasp!) consider a Nikon D100 with the 12-24 narrow-format zoom, though I suspect it has barrel distortion on the wide end.

Rick "who warns that the 16-35 and 17-40 zooms have barrel distortion on the wide end, too" Denney

[CyberDyneSystems]

If this is your primary use for the lens,. have you looked at the tilt shift lenses.

They were designed for architecture.

[rdenney]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
If this is your primary use for the lens,. have you looked at the tilt shift lenses.

They were designed for architecture.

The problem with the tilt-shift lens is that the shortest focal length available is 24mm. That just isn't short enough on the small sensor to be useful. It's fine for product photography (especially with the tilt feature), but it won't sweep up much of a cramped interior.

I have a shift lens for 6x6 format that is 45mm focal length. This is about like a 24 in full-frame 35mm, or a 15 on a 15x23 sensor. But for that sort of stuff I prefer a view camera with a 6x9 rollfilm back and a 47mm Super Angulon, which is effectively even wider and much more flexible. Shift lenses for SLR's are not easy--the sight lines through the mirror box are often quite challenging to work around--and the result is always a bit of a compromise.

One option for the committed architectural photographer who cannot make use of a scanning back on a view camera, but who must have digital plus full movements, would be the new Cambo digital view camera that uses a Canon 1Ds with a front-mounted sensor. That would be even more expensive than the 24mm tilt-shift lens and the 1Ds, and I still don't know what lens you'd put on it. In any case, until the full-frame body in the 10D price range is available, you'll have to enjoy an inheritance of have a good supply of wealthy clients.

Rick "who would be interested in a 15mm rectilinear 15x23-format shift lens for the Canon, but who has no inheritance and never had wealthy clients" Denney

[hkelsey]

I am using panotools to stich photos. I have also seen some fisheye shots converted to rectilinear layouts that were very good.

On the 21mm SA, I was referring to the lens, not the format. The problem I feel with all the manufacturers on the 14mm lenses are the distortions , even though you only use the middle area for digital. I looked at the Sigma and Tamron 14mm but decided to keep in the Canon family and got the 20mm. I had a Canon FD 14mm but have balked at the EOS version price.

I think you are right about cheaper a full frame version soon. Even with the new Olympus format, etc, when a full frame body gets down to the $1000 range we will all be trading in our D10's.

[rdenney]

hkelsey wrote:
I am using panotools to stich photos. I have also seen some fisheye shots converted to rectilinear layouts that were very good.

...The problem I feel with all the manufacturers on the 14mm lenses are the distortions , even though you only use the middle area for digital...


Yes, Panotools and other panorama software can indeed convert a fisheye image to rectilinear, but remember that there is a lot of image jammed into a little space in the corners, and the software will stretch that out a lot. You need three to five times the resolution that you'll need ultimately to avoid seeing where the software did its work. That's too big a hit, in my opinion, unless you only intend web display.

On the other hand, a 14mm lens with a little bit of barrel distortion is just is like a slight fisheye, and you can correct it to precisely rectilinear with only minimal losses.

But the 14mm lens will give you exactly the same image--barring slight barrel distortion--as a 21mm lens on a full-frame camera. The perspective projection will be identically the same, as long as you put the camera in the same place. It's the camera position that determines the perspective projection.

Rick "who might also use a 6x9-equipped view camera with a 47mm Super Angulon to get the same image as a 14mm rectilinear lens on a 10D" Denney

[dwbrant]

Also existing:

Sigma 20mm prime f1.8 -- sharp at f2.8 -> f22.

Sigma 15-30mm zoom (f3.5?) -- sharp.

Tamron 19-35, Tokina 19-35, Sigma 19-35 -- all decent but not as good as those above.

--you asked for alternative brands, these are what I know of... there may be more.

Good luck

-- Dave

(I would endorse the two Sigmas at the top, I have both of them)