Manual focus Nikkor wide-angles useless for architecture?

chip j · Dec 16, 2014

Ken Rockwell says they all have barrel distortion, and the fast normal Nikkors too. I have a set of these from 20mm to 50mm inclusive, but it looks like I'll have to use my Contax G outfit to shoot architectural details. Why is this?

snapguy · Dec 16, 2014

whatever

Whatever you do, believe everything you read on the Internet. I sold real estate in Palm Springs after a long career as a photog. I remember photographing a 40-foot wide swimming pool and a 70-foot-wide porch with a Nikon with a Nikkor 28mm lens and the photos came out fabulous. Not to mention using a Nikkor 50mm as well. If you want to know how some gear works, test it yourself. There is no other sane way to go.

Sirius Glass · Dec 16, 2014

APUGuser19 said:
Wide angle lenses have barrel distortion? Wow, that's news.

That does not include the Zeiss Biogon 38mm lens used in the Hasselblad SWC. It is rectilinearly correct.

summicron1 · Dec 16, 2014

barrel distortion? As the man says, take pics and judge for yurself. I have several Leica lenses that some critics have said have pincushion distortion or barrel (zoom, especially) and I can't see anything.

It may be there, but you need to be hyper-critical to see it. So shoot with your nikkors and be at peace.

Vilk · Dec 16, 2014

20/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.2 all AIS here--and yes, straight lines close and parallel to the edge of the frame are obviously wrong, very annoying if framing of this kind is part of your composition, it did bite me more than once... still, i use all of them daily and have no plans to replace any of them... but then again, i don't do "architecture..." apologies for the useless, redundant post

chip j · Dec 16, 2014

My Contax G 21, 28, & 45 have NO linear distortion!

gone · Dec 16, 2014

Just stand back a little further and crop.

wiltw · Dec 16, 2014

momus said:
Just stand back a little further and crop.

Stand back a little further...to shoot architectural details -- when it is probably impossible to move back within the confines of the space being photographed?!

jimjm · Dec 16, 2014

They're not useless for architecture, it just depends on how you're using them. Modern wide lenses are pretty darn good - it just seems people become obsessed about any perceived imperfections in their equipment. I also have many of the Nikon wides and I use them for interior and exterior architectural shots - I just know the limitations of each.

Wide-angle lenses for SLR's have to be designed to clear the mirror in the camera body, thus resulting in fairly complex optical designs in order to minimize distortion and provide an acceptable image. This is one reason why good wide lenses for SLR's tend to be more expensive than other focal lengths. Some early wide lenses for the Nikon F required locking-up the mirror and using an external VF to frame the shot. Here's a good article from Lensrentals on this subject http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses

Obviously, some lenses have more distortion than others. You just need to research and test your lenses to find which are better. Generally, fast normal lenses may also have some optical aberrations not seen in slower lenses like the 50/1.8 or 50/2.0. If I want to use a 1.4 or 1.2 lens, it's because of it's low-light capability, not because I need perfectly straight brick walls. If you're doing a lot of architectural photography, you may want to invest in a tilt/shift lens for 35mm cameras, or move up to larger formats. Most serious architectural photographers used 4x5 and larger cameras before the advent of digital manipulation (many still do) because of the ability to control perspective and focal plane adjustments. Also, since you're composing on the ground glass you'll see exactly what will be on the film.

Lenses for rangefinder cameras can intrude into the camera body as far as needed, short of touching the shutter or interior light baffles. Thus, the design for these lenses need not be as complex, they are often very small and not as expensive in relation to normal and longer lenses. The wide lenses for your Contax G don't need to overcome the design limitations of an SLR body. If I was shooting sports or wildlife I wouldn't pick a rangefinder as my camera of choice either. One disadvantage of using your Contax for architectural shots is the innacurate framing, compared to an SLR camera.

Sirius Glass · Dec 17, 2014

jimjm said:
Wide-angle lenses for SLR's have to be designed to clear the mirror in the camera body, thus resulting in fairly complex optical designs in order to minimize distortion and provide an acceptable image. This is one reason why good wide lenses for SLR's tend to be more expensive than other focal lengths. Some early wide lenses for the Nikon F required locking-up the mirror and using an external VF to frame the shot. Here's a good article from Lensrentals on this subject http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses

Called retrofocus design.

Jesper · Dec 17, 2014

I've found the Nikkor 15/3.5 Ais to have surprisingly little barrel distorsion if that is of any help. For architecture I would however recommend something with tilt/shift/swing cabability.

JimCee · Dec 17, 2014

Strange... Ken Rockwell said exactly the opposite about the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS lens in this review:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28f28ais.htm

He also states that the 15mm f/3.5 is completely free from barrel distortion at "ordinary distances".

Jim

frank · Dec 17, 2014

Ken Rockwell says ...

lxdude · Dec 17, 2014

It's Ken Rockwell Authoritative Pundit syndrome. KRAP for short.

flavio81 · Dec 17, 2014

APUGuser19 said:
Fact it, if you're shooting most any 35mm camera, a 35mm 2/8 or 3.5 is about as wide as you can expect before distortion takes over in earnest.

No, that's not a fact. There is a difference in the perspective "distortion" brought by the fact that the wideangle is squeezing more into the frame, versus barrel or pincushion (geometrical) distortion. There are many wideangle lenses with minimal (unperceptible) geometrical distortion, for example the Canon FD 17mm f4.0 and the Canon FL 19mm f3.5, just to name two. Note that they are extreme wideangles, far wider than just 35mm.

Regardless of what Ken Rockwell says, It's my experience that in the late 70s and early 80s Nikon "squeezed-down" some of its wideangle lenses, gaining compactness at the expense of geometrical distortion and/or corner sharpness. This is the case, for example, of the ultra-compact Nikon 20/4.0 AI lens. This is due to Olympus and it's marketing of the OM-1, where suddenly compactness became something desirable in 35mm SLRs. The industry switched to "compact is better" and the era of fully corrected objectives ended...

In general i've found the Canon FD wideangles of the same era to be usually corrected for distortion; it seems that it was an important criteria for them. In fact so far i haven't found a Canon wideangle that objectionably distorts --- i've used FD 24/2.8, 28/2.8, FL 19/3.5, EF 24/2.8; they are all very low distortion. On the other hand you have the Nikon 15/3.5 extreme wideangle with reportedly zero distortion. And it's huge. So Nikon knows how to make good wideangles (that's an understatement!)
Blame OLYMPUS, Maitani and his OM-1 system for the horrible syndrome of squeezing down lenses at the detriment of other performance parameters! And Nikon for following the trend!

flavio81 · Dec 17, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
Called retrofocus design.

Or "inverted telephoto".

E. von Hoegh · Dec 17, 2014

chip j said:
Ken Rockwell says they all have barrel distortion, and the fast normal Nikkors too. I have a set of these from 20mm to 50mm inclusive, but it looks like I'll have to use my Contax G outfit to shoot architectural details. Why is this?

It's because you're believing everything KR says.
My 28/3.5 Nikkor-H behaves admirably; ditto the 35/2.0 Nikkor-O. The 20/3.5 Nikkor UD does show some bloating distortion, but then I almost never take pictures of brick walls and I regard that one as a special purpose lens anyway - it does that very well and I have some stunning photos using that lens on a tripod in various buildings. The distortion is immaterial; I'm not doing phototelemetry.
When I want to take serious architectural studies I use my 4x5 anyway.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 17, 2014

lxdude said:
It's Ken Rockwell Authoritative Pundit syndrome. KRAP for short.

John Koehrer · Dec 17, 2014

The opinions offered on the KR site are worth exactly what you've paid for them. Unless you paid more than the power used to run your computer.
It's like other parts of the anatomy..............?

Sirius Glass · Dec 17, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
Called retrofocus design.

flavio81 said:
Or "inverted telephoto".

Yep dem 2

flavio81 · Dec 17, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
It's because you're believing everything KR says.
My 28/3.5 Nikkor-H behaves admirably; ditto the 35/2.0 Nikkor-O.

I'm taking notes!! A 28mm is on my planned "next Nikkor buys". Great to know the 35/2.0 has low distortion.

I own the 35/3.5 PC-Nikkor and the 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor, the former has noticeable distortion if you shift it too much, but on the other hand i have one very nice picture done with it which depicts a gigantic, old metal door, and everything looks straight enough. The 35/2.8 I haven't used as a shifted lens yet. But it is SHARP! It is so good, it should be labeled "Canon"...

RalphLambrecht · Dec 17, 2014

snapguy said:
Whatever you do, believe everything you read on the Internet. I sold real estate in Palm Springs after a long career as a photog. I remember photographing a 40-foot wide swimming pool and a 70-foot-wide porch with a Nikon with a Nikkor 28mm lens and the photos came out fabulous. Not to mention using a Nikkor 50mm as well. If you want to know how some gear works, test it yourself. There is no other sane way to go.

...and it doesn't matter anyway,distortion is part of the look I'm after when mounting a WAlens.it makes the image more interesting!a fully corrected view is boring.You can use PS to test that.

narsuitus · Dec 17, 2014

I purchased the Nikon 28mm f/4 perspective control lens to give me some of the perspective control I lost when I sold my large format system.

When I first used this lens for architectural work, I was very surprised and disappointed to discover that this lens designed for architectural photography had so much barrel distortion.

If I ever start shooting a lot of architectural photography again, I will replace my 4x5 system rather than rely on this lens.

https://flic.kr/p/9t7qqu

chip j · Dec 17, 2014

Thanks for that! I was thinking of getting one!

chip j · Dec 17, 2014

Thanks, everyone! From what I learned from this thread, I just ordered a Canon FTb w/50 1.8, and will set about getting Canon FD wide-angles! Chip

Manual focus Nikkor wide-angles useless for architecture?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency