interior shots - wide angle lens - recomendations

06/30/2005 05:07:18 PM · #1

Any one have some good thoughts or recomendations? I am looking to buy a lens for interior architecture shots. I don't have an unlimited budget... ie.. the $1700 canon 14mm looks nice but a tad expensive.. if i am going to be puttin down $1700 i would like the 70-200mm IS USM L lens... not a wimpy fisheye... but back to topic.... any recomendations on a wide angle?

06/30/2005 05:10:00 PM · #2

and another question.. some wide angle lenses have 'fish eye' behind them while others do not... does anyone know the reason for this.... and one tamoron lens says 'asphyrical'...???? comments.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

06/30/2005 05:10:44 PM · #3

Why not the sigma 15mm fish? It's supposed to be just as sharp as the canon! Other options are the tonk. 12-24mm I've heard good things about it and I heard tamron is coming out with a superwide soon too?

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

06/30/2005 05:11:51 PM · #4

From Kirbic, here's a chart for lenses vs fishes :-)
//img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/kyebosh/FoVComparo_v3.jpg

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

06/30/2005 05:12:44 PM · #5

Sadly the 14mm is the awsome choice...I have it and it's more or less the best lens for a 1.6crop. money wise, of course there are lenses in the 16/17mm range that are quite apealing, the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0 XrDi is a great rival to the 16-35L 2.8 USM... however, 17mm may be less than magic for you... if you don't mind the distortion, there is the 12-22 from canon and some 12mm from tokina (I think) but if your intent is serious architectural images, I found these lenses to be way to distorted to be used. so in the end.... it's either 14mm and $$$ or 17mm at a reasonable expense.

06/30/2005 05:19:02 PM · #6

why do some lenses get distorted more than others when they are the same focal length...

what about this lens
sigma

or this lens
Tamron

Those to are aspherical... meaning not so distorted???

06/30/2005 05:20:19 PM · #7

also, since i want somewhat decent quality, i wonder if a non zoom would be in order.

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

06/30/2005 05:48:56 PM · #8

I have had the occasion if using tamron and their glass is great, very slow to focus and sometimes they tend so "confuse the af" but generally very very good glass.

I have not played with their 14mm so I can't vouch for it, but I have played with the 17-35 and it rivals my 16-35 at less than 1/2 the price.

here's the deal... 14mm IS THE LENS for architectural.

Message edited by author 2005-06-30 17:49:56.

gwphoto

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

06/30/2005 06:12:34 PM · #9

Have you thought of using a normal lens and taking 2 or 3 shots and photo stitch them together? When you have to deal with factor of 1.3 or 1.6 it makes sense to me to try that. I do hotel room shots and you need at least a 20-24mm on a zero factor camera. Photo stitch should work.

07/01/2005 02:56:31 AM · #10

Allright, I have done some research now and here are my results (in case anyone else has similar questions.

Canon's 14 mm lens - very nice lens, very expensive
Tarmon 14 mm lens - cheaper build, more $$ than Sigma
Sigma 14 mm lens - good quality (AS LONG AS IT IS ON A CAMERA WITH 1.6 CROP) i need a lens for my canon 10d. The edges start to warp on the outer corners that is no problem if they are cropped, but put it on a canon 1ds and this lens is not so hot...

so in the end, since i need a econical lens and am using it on the 10d I will choose the sigma. It is for real estate sales photography, and if i end up enjoying the lens tons, and use it lots, and do a lot of real estate photography perhaps i will consider the canon (also i hope to switch to a 1D sometime, which would also prompt a shift in lens).

thanks for your comments and thoughts...

feel free to add more if you'all have any other thoughts

Message edited by author 2005-07-01 02:57:00.

RichT8496

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I

07/01/2005 03:49:26 AM · #11

If it's for creative architecture then you might want fish-eye but if it's for real estate type work then you want to have a distortion-corrected lens.

'Aspherical' is not primarily to do with the familiar fish-eye distortion and simply means that the lens elements themselves do not follow a natural curve. Instead they are manufactured with a non-uniform curve to try to more accurately focus all light to a single point. With a spherical lens often light that passes through the edge will be bent differently that light which passes through the middle section. Therefore an aspherical lens is used to try to account for this.

Aspherical technology is used on nearly all types of lenses these days and is not a fish-eye technology.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/01/2005 04:47:39 AM · #12

why would i choose the

Sigma 14mm over say, a tokina 12-24mm

I gain a couple stops with the 14mm but is this the only advantage?

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

07/01/2005 04:48:52 AM · #13

I would guess the 14mm prime would be higher quality than the 12-24 zoom. Of course you lose convenience, so it depends what you want.

07/01/2005 04:54:56 AM · #14

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

I would guess the 14mm prime would be higher quality than the 12-24 zoom. Of course you lose convenience, so it depends what you want.

yeah... i suppose it is better quality somewhat as well... however the 12-24 is also a few hundred $$ cheaper.. making it more desirable

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/01/2005 05:09:53 AM · #15

aarrg so many choices

sigma 15-30 $499
canon 10-22 $749 but isn't L glass.. a sigma EX might be better and cheaper
canon 17-40 $649 for L glass perhaps this is good, but 17mm.. perhaps not wide enough
tokina 12-24mm $499
sigma 10-20 $469

Message edited by author 2005-07-01 05:33:25.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

07/01/2005 05:15:25 AM · #16

I can't seem to find the reviews on Fred Miranda for the 15-30, but it's not supposed to be great quality if I remember rightly.

I have the 10-22, and while I had to send the first one back because the focus was off, my new one is a great lens. That said, it's EF-S, so it won't fit on a 10D anyway.

07/01/2005 05:20:23 AM · #17

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

That said, it's EF-S, so it won't fit on a 10D anyway.

OHHHH.. well that's good to know.... i didn't know there were lenses that didn't go on a 10D (that were for eos cameras)
thanks for the tip...

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

07/01/2005 08:29:08 AM · #18

I think you have to think about the sigma vs the tamron twice.... the tamron is a much sharper lens,less vignetting,faster focusing and better contrast ratio.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

07/01/2005 08:46:25 AM · #19

If the 17mm is good enough, take the 17-40L if not, get the 12-24 Tokina.

Gatorguy

Nikon D700

07/01/2005 08:58:36 AM · #20

I have a couple clients that I do architectural work for. When shooting digital, I've had good luck with the Sigma 15-30. If I'm in too close and get distortion of vertical lines, it's a 30 second fix in Photoshop.

Here is a link to the most recent project

//www.pbase.com/bmphotography/cwmears

Bill

Discraft