Best Lens For Shooting Building/Structures

[PaulSands]

Hi everybody
Could anyone recommend the best wide angle lens choice, for use with a 10D, to photograph what is "basically a large low height marquee" being constructed. Earning potential her so I want to ensure I could deliver

[robertwgross]

For things architectural, you might want to consider a tilt-shift lens. Canon makes a few, and there is no autofocus, and they are a little tricky to use properly.

---Bob Gross---

[grego]

Another option is........

Canon's 14mm f/2.8

This ultra-wide-angle lens has the shortest focal length in the L-series. Element 2 is an Aspherical lens to correct distortion. Other aberrations such as astigmatism are also corrected, resulting in ideal image quality. The lens has a fixed, petal-type hood and a gelatin filter holder at the rear.

Sigma and Tamron also have less expensive substitutes at 14mm f/2.8........

[KevC]

You could always pick up a Russian Fish for starters. Only ~$150, the MC Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 is pretty nice for what it's worth.

[Tom W]

Both Canon's 20/2.8 and Sigma's 20/1.8 are pretty good for this kind of photography, as they both have fairly low barrel distortion. Not sure if this is wide enough for your purposes, but they are relatively inexpensive compared to the 14 mm L, and have good image quality.

[PaulSands]

Thanks for those suggestions...would a Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM also be a good choice?

[ed rader]

>>Thanks for those suggestions...would a Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM also be a good choice?<<

on a camera with a 1.6mm crop factor that's effectively 48mm, which may not be wide enough.

your question suggests that you are a novice. i would stick with a sharp wide angle zoom if i were you and forget the expensive primes that guys who love to spend the money of others would suggest.

i use the tamron 17-35.

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/91A87712FF36FD3/orig.jpg

[condyk]

i use the tamron 17-35.


That's a lens I like a lot and the 12-24mm Tokina would also be a great choice (it's on my list, but hard to find in the UK!) The 18-50mm 2.8 Sigma covers an excellent range for £300 and superb quality results. 18mm is actually quite wide but it depends how close you want to be to the subject when you shoot. The rest of its range is great for walking around and shooting. What's your budget?

[Tom W]

your question suggests that you are a novice. i would stick with a sharp wide angle zoom if i were you and forget the expensive primes that guys who love to spend the money of others would suggest.

i use the tamron 17-35.

ed rader



The primes I listed are not expensive. One could just as easily suggest that he forget the expensive zooms that guys who love to spend the money of others would suggest.

More realistically, the two 20 mm primes I mentioned are about $400, while the Tamron 17-35 zoom is listed at $480 including rebate. They're all good choices, but the primes generally excel in having corner-to-corner sharpness and minimal barrel distortion. That's not to say that the zooms are bad and that particular Tamron appears to be a good performer. It's just that the primes give you something a bit better, though at the cost of convenience.

Bob's suggestion of a tilt-shift lens is probably the best for general architectural photography, but it's also rather expensive. Not only is it low distortion, but you can maintain straight verticle lines even when pointing the lens upward. Granted, you can correct perspective distortion in photoshop, but you're chewing up pixels doing so. If this job is to be commercial, that should be considered.

[ed rader]

>>The primes I listed are not expensive. One could just as easily suggest that he forget the expensive zooms that guys who love to spend the money of others would suggest.

More realistically, the two 20 mm primes I mentioned are about $400, while the Tamron 17-35 zoom is listed at $480 including rebate. They're all good choices, but the primes generally excel in having corner-to-corner sharpness and minimal barrel distortion. That's not to say that the zooms are bad and that particular Tamron appears to be a good performer. It's just that the primes give you something a bit better, though at the cost of convenience.

Bob's suggestion of a tilt-shift lens is probably the best for general architectural photography, but it's also rather expensive. Not only is it low distortion, but you can maintain straight verticle lines even when pointing the lens upward. Granted, you can correct perspective distortion in photoshop, but you're chewing up pixels doing so. If this job is to be commercial, that should be considered.<<

the poster just asked if the sigma 30 f1.4 was a good choice!

i would never recommend a prime or a tilt-shift lens to such an obvious novice.

ed rader
__________________

[Tom W]

the poster just asked if the sigma 30 f1.4 was a good choice!

i would never recommend a prime or a tilt-shift lens to such an obvious novice.

ed rader
__________________

My response was based on your insult on "guys who love to spend the money of others".

But beyond that, there's nothing wrong with a prime for novice - my first SLR came with a prime. My second lens was also a prime. There is nothing daunting about operating a prime lens that would discourage a novice. This is assuming that the OP is a novice - he hasn't stated such, and his question on whether the 30/1.4 is a good choice is totally dependent on where he is standing in relation to the building. I've shot buildings with fisheye lenses, as well as a 135 mm telephoto.

A tilt-shift lens might present some complications for the novice, but it also presents the best tool for architectural photography. That's a tradeoff that the OP needs to make. He asked for what will give him the best images.

[ed rader]

tom -- my first SLR came with a prime too .... but that was a canon AE-1 and the year was 1980.

zooms were crap back then --- at least the ones i could afford. and the three lenses i owned were a 50mm, 28mm and 80mm....and these were very popular lengths.

the 17-35 gives the coverage of the first two and everything in between.

the portrait length isn't necessary for architecture and if so there's always the $70 canon 50 1.8.

since then zooms have gotten much better and these days i think primes are more a specialty lens and most people don't want 'em.

then again he did say "the best" so maybe you are right :cool: .

ed rader

[Joe R]

For building exteriors, a 20mm prime or 17-35-ish zoom will be fine. The Sigma 20mm is a better performer than the Canon.

For interiors, you will need a wider lens. I have been using the Tokina 12-24mm and it's great. This review nails it:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm

[Jon]

i would never recommend a prime or a tilt-shift lens to such an obvious novice.

I think "obvious novice" is rather a stretch. He asked for recommendations about lenses for a specific, atypical, photo situation, then later asked for additional opinions on a single specific lens. If I had a nickel for every post where people asked for lens recommendations on wedding photography (often very experienced members, at that), I wouldn't be craving that 70-200 Is any more.

[ed rader]

based on the information the poster gave i would recommend a sharp, fast zoom every time if i were limited to one lens whether he's a novice or a pro.

and maybe a shorter zoom would be preferable since the dimensions are unknown.

ed rader

[ed rader]

>>I think "obvious novice" is rather a stretch. He asked for recommendations about lenses for a specific, atypical, photo situation, then later asked for additional opinions on a single specific lens.<<

atypical? sheesh. he 's shooting a building of unknown size and wonders if an effective 50mm length is a good choice.

really doesn't sound that complex or atypical to me.

ed rader

[robertwgross]

Bob's suggestion of a tilt-shift lens is probably the best for general architectural photography, but it's also rather expensive. Not only is it low distortion, but you can maintain straight verticle lines even when pointing the lens upward. Granted, you can correct perspective distortion in photoshop, but you're chewing up pixels doing so. If this job is to be commercial, that should be considered.

Tilt-shift is the standard for architectural photography, but the lenses are expensive and there is no autofocus. This is fresh in my mind, since last weekend my backpacking buddy was using one to fool with the slanted focus plane issues of getting flowers in focus at three feet and also background trees in focus at 150 feet.

---Bob Gross---