Interior Architectural Lens

[gunnar1]

I am looking to make a news lens purchase for my Canon 1d m3 1.3 crop body. I own a remodeling company and want to start shooting interiors of my projects. Currently I am using a 24-105 and am reasonably happy with it but it seems that 24 on the wide end on the 1.3 crop just doesn't fit the bill in tight spaces like kitchens and bathrooms. So, the question is, what lens to buy? I don't mind spending as much as a 16-35 costs as long as it offers a substantial benefit over my current setup. If I go to something like a 14mm I am asking for too much distortion for interiors? I want to achieve a very professional finished product to stand out from the crowd- so many guys just shoot away with a p&s and throw it up on a crappy web site... That said, I could hire it out but the one time I did do that I shelled out nearly $4k and that's just too far over what I can afford for each project. I would rather spend some money and time teaching myself.

I also have a an older 20d body if there is one of the ef-s lenses that would be really do a great job but I would rather not be stuck with a proprietary 1.6 crop lens if I don't have to be. Are there any interior architectural shooters out there that could weigh in on this? Do I really need to go to a ts-e lens?

Thanks, Pat

[pfigen]

The obvious answer, of course, will be the new 17mm Tilt-Shift lens anounced last week. It would give you a 22mm equivelant on your 1D cropped sensor and would be a great focal length for your purposes. The little more than you wanted to spend, but it's tax deductable and when you amortize the added cost over many years, it's really not significant.

[Ken Bennett]

I use the Sigma 12-24mm lens for architecture. It works very well on my 1D Mark II bodies with their 1.3x sensor crop.

I do have a Canon 16-35 II, and it's certainly wider than the 24-105, but it's still not all that wide for interiors. The Sigma is quite sharp and has very little distortion and almost no color fringing -- unlike the 16-35. However, the Sigma really needs to be shot at f/11 or even f/16 for best results, so it requires a solid tripod, etc.

EDIT: forgot about the 17 T/S. Nice lens. I have the 24 T/S lens and it's useful but not wide enough.

[Rob C]

At the risk of starting a war, if you want to shoot pictures from the point that makes the best shot, not from the point where the lens causes least problems, you have no option other than to go with a shifter lens at least. It might not sound like much, but in practice it makes or breaks pictures. Some say to correct for verticals in PS - life doesn´t get that generous: there are going to be other distortions and bits cut off the sides where you have to make up for the induced "repairs" to your image... but it might not bother you, as it obviously doesn´t seem to affect many other operators either...

Rob C

[Kirk Gittings]

At the risk of starting a war, if you want to shoot pictures from the point that makes the best shot, not from the point where the lens causes least problems, you have no option other than to go with a shifter lens at least. It might not sound like much, but in practice it makes or breaks pictures. Some say to correct for verticals in PS - life doesn´t get that generous: there are going to be other distortions and bits cut off the sides where you have to make up for the induced "repairs" to your image... but it might not bother you, as it obviously doesn´t seem to affect many other operators either...

Rob C

Sorry, I realize this is off topic, but I agree with Rob. And the overall point is important I think. Now that the full frame sensor bodies are reasonably priced, in combination with T/S lenses, they are clearly the way to go for architecture and interiors. With crop sensors, and especially zoom wide angles, once you get the perspective straightened out (which involves cropping and interpolation), and the barrel distortion straightened out you have compromised allot of the original resolution of the image. I have students who work with crop sensor cameras and zoom lenses for architecture and the final result, though adequate for many purposes, is clearly inferior to a FF with T/S lenses.

[jjlphoto]

We will have to see what that Canon 17TSE is capable of and how much barreling it has. I have a hunch that it barrels a lot, and when shifted, will only show more weird 'off-axis' barreling. Right now, my workflow is to correct barreling on an un-cropped file first, then do any needed perspective correction in CS. I shoot standard prime lenses, as trying to de-barrel a shifted image can be a real nightmare. It can be done if you have taken scrupulous notes as to how much of a rise and/or shift you have made, and re-create that effect by placing your file into a blank oversized file (the size of the entire len's circle of illumination) sliding it around to mimic that same rise and/or shift, but it becomes very time consuming.

[fike]

You could also consider an inexpensive panoramic setup.  With a 24mm lens, you can shoot five images off a tripod and cover nearly 180 degrees.  Then when you are back at the computer, you can handle the distortion in any number of ways.  

I think it is also pretty important to remember that you can't shoot that kind of wide angle without introducing distortion that needs post-processing to look natural and straight.

[free1000]

To the OP.

Who is your customer? Male or Female? Who buys.

What do they like to look at?

Why not get one of them to sit down with you and flick through some interior magazines which feature projects like yours. Get a bunch of different styles of magazines.

If these people say they want to see super wide angle shots, horribly distorted, then by all means get a very wide angle lens.

My goal in interiors is to use the longest FL I can get away with for any one shot. My goal is not to 'get everything in' in one shot, but instead to create involvement and an ambience.  You might spend a little time looking through the pictures here and ask yourself what focal lengths look best in pictures, and what pictures make you want to buy.

www.narratives.co.uk
 

[NicholasR]

To the OP.

Who is your customer? Male or Female? Who buys.

What do they like to look at?

Why not get one of them to sit down with you and flick through some interior magazines which feature projects like yours. Get a bunch of different styles of magazines.

If these people say they want to see super wide angle shots, horribly distorted, then by all means get a very wide angle lens.

My goal in interiors is to use the longest FL I can get away with for any one shot. My goal is not to 'get everything in' in one shot, but instead to create involvement and an ambience.  You might spend a little time looking through the pictures here and ask yourself what focal lengths look best in pictures, and what pictures make you want to buy.

www.narratives.co.uk

I appreciate your point, but people have different styles and I don't think super wide necessarily has to be horribly distorted.  I shoot ultrawide a lot, its about controlling the distortion, managing the perspective.

For instance, this is around 17mm equivalant
 )  Again, ultrawide, but horribly distorted?  I don't think so, but maybe I'm just warped from using wide angles

[jjlphoto]

You could also consider an inexpensive panoramic setup.  With a 24mm lens, you can shoot five images off a tripod and cover nearly 180 degrees.  Then when you are back at the computer, you can handle the distortion in any number of ways.

If you are doing interiors, you'd better get your nodal point dead-on otherwise you will get parallax errors with closer items.

[Kirk Gittings]

Good point. I primarily do simple flat stitches with T/S lens which makes simple stitches a no brainer. The only thing you have to remember is to keep the shift within the boundaries where it does not fall off significantly and switch out of AWB as it will shift as the camera is shifted if the quality of light is different from one area to the next.

[gunnar1]

Sorry, I didn't realize that there were replies to this post- usually they get emailed to me and I hadn't received any emails. Anyway, thanks much for the replies. Some suggestions, such as buying a FF body and another lens, just aren't going to cut it, so I'm back to using what I have for bodies, and buying one new lens (until May...).

The t/s 17mm is, I think, the most obvious choice, however it is not slated to be released until May if Canon sticks to their timeline. That is fully two months away so a more immediate solution is at hand. In the end, I think I will go with the suggestion of the Sigma 12-24 and continue to use my existing 24-105 when possible. I do use an excellent tripod so will experiment with some stitching as well. This is temporary until the t/s 17 becomes available. I wouldn't mind having a super-wide anyway, and the price is right on the Sigma.

To Free1000, my typical client varies. All I really want to do is to be able to create a web gallery where what I do is shown off by the photography, not crappy snapshots that detract. I feel that with decent photography, my product is that much more appealing, and shows a higher level of attention to detail.

Pat

[TimothyHughes]

I wouldn't dismiss the 17-40mm L or the 16-35mm L (which I use). My colleagues and I have done excellent interiors with those lenses.

That being said, if your architectural photography income can pay off a TS lens, that would be the ideal choice.

[stever]

with any of the wide angle zooms, a distortion correction tool like PT lens (cheap and also corrects for geometric distortion).  my problem with the 12-24 is corner sharpness (these lenses have a reputation of severe lens to lens variation).  i've found the Tokina 11-16 to have good corner sharpness on my 20D and 40D.  stitching with 28mm prime lens may ultimately give better results (if this is necessary)

[gunnar1]

Thanks Timothy. I wish it was income I was deriving from architectural photography but it is rather income from projects/clients derived from being able to see my work on a site before seeing it in person. I just want those photos to show my work in the best light (no pun intended...)

The 17-40 is another lens I was considering along with the Sigma 12-24. I figured the Sigma only because I already have a 24-105, so there would not be the overlap. Considering that I shoot a 1.3 crop I figured that the slightly wider 12-24 might be the better choice. I realize that distortion will be an issue at the wide end, and that I will have to perform some amount of correction. Again, this is a stopgap until the 17 t/s is released.

[photoshutter]

I'm using 12-24mm Sigma too, with 1dII, great lens.

[Guillermo Luijk]

My goal in interiors is to use the longest FL I can get away with for any one shot. My goal is not to 'get everything in' in one shot, but instead to create involvement and an ambience.

I am glad to hear this from someone, it seems hyper wide angle is the only solution when I think is not the best decision. I am entering this kind of photography, participating in specialised forums, and the general belief from professional arquitecture and interiorism photographers is always that anything below 24mm (in a 35mm eq. sensor) is not suitable for its high degree of perspective distortion in the borders. They mostly shoot FF and have a 24mm TS lens for most interior shooting. If you don't plan to buy a TS lens, perhaps having a bit more wide angle than 24mm can be recommended; but not to fully make use of it, but to be able to crop or correct perspective a bit instead.

BR

[Kirk Gittings]

"If you don't plan to buy a TS lens, perhaps having a bit more wide angle than 24mm can be recommended; but not to fully make use of it, but to be able to crop or correct perspective a bit instead."

The non T/S lens approach is a viable option for some people. As it stands now, the interpolation problems of radical perspective correction in PS (when working say with a prime 24) is about as messy as the full shift corner resolution softness of the Canon 24 T/S. BUT IMO (and really from my personal experience as an old 4x5 film convert to DSLR), working with primes and correcting perspective in PS means really you are shifting the composition phase of your creativity to the computer. I personally don't favor this approach. I like to see the image in the field, in the camera, where I can fine tune my composition and just do rather small corrections (like barrel distortion etc.) in PS. But as I said I made my living shooting architecture/interiors with a 4x5 view camera for 30+ years so I am used to making these decisions in the field. I simply cannot compose elegantly with a DSLR except in the field with T/S lenses.

[Craig Lamson]

"If you don't plan to buy a TS lens, perhaps having a bit more wide angle than 24mm can be recommended; but not to fully make use of it, but to be able to crop or correct perspective a bit instead."

The non T/S lens approach is a viable option for some people. As it stands now, the interpolation problems of radical perspective correction in PS (when working say with a prime 24) is about as messy as the full shift corner resolution softness of the Canon 24 T/S. BUT IMO (and really from my personal experience as an old 4x5 film convert to DSLR), working with primes and correcting perspective in PS means really you are shifting the composition phase of your creativity to the computer. I personally don't favor this approach. I like to see the image in the field, where I can fine tune my composition and just do rather small corrections (like barrel distortion etc.) in PS. But as I said I made my living shooting architecture/interiors with a 4x5 view camera for 30+ years so I am used to making these decisions in the field. I simply cannot compose elegantly with a DSLR except in the field with T/S lenses.

I shoot a lot of really small spaces...interiors of RV's and Boats, and the 24ts is not nearly wide enough.  I do use the 17-40 at 17 quite a bit but correcting CA is a pain.  My most used lens is the 12-24.  I have a very nice copy and it works well on the 1DsMKIII.

I do miss the 4x5 view camera as well, but doing perspective correction in post is working ok.  I really love shooting single point perspective and doing it without a 4x5 works but the extensive interpolation does take the edge off of the images.

I deal with composition issues by shooting directly to the computer and doing a quick perspective correction in PS to see where I'm at. I don't find it to be that time consuming compared to shooting and processing polaroids, plus you get to pixel peep.

[Guillermo Luijk]

working with primes and correcting perspective in PS means really you are shifting the composition phase of your creativity to the computer. I personally don't favor this approach. I like to see the image in the field, in the camera, where I can fine tune my composition

And there is an additional advantage of in-place image shifting: you realize how much perspective distortion you will get because you are seeing it, and so you can decide if the shot is good enough for you or you need to try a different approach. With software correction in mind, surprises can arise in front of the PC, when shooting again to obtain a decent perspective is not an option anymore.