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?
Manual focus Nikkor wide-angles useless for architecture?
-
A
- Thread starter chip j
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Leica 14510 leather case for R-E, R4, R5, R6.
- Started by Chrismat
-
For Sale FS: A Pair of NORMAN Flash Tube Covers
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Free FREE for shipping cost: HUGE Lot of Vintage Photo Literature!
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Zeiss hologon camera set 15mm f8 lens center filter grip cable & case
- Started by Redcurtain
-
For Sale Prewar zeiss biogon 3.5cm f2.8 - coated glass - marked M168 with original caps
- Started by Redcurtain
Forum statistics
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.
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.
That does not include the Zeiss Biogon 38mm lens used in the Hasselblad SWC. It is rectilinearly correct.
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.
It may be there, but you need to be hyper-critical to see it. So shoot with your nikkors and be at peace.
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 
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?!
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.
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.
Called retrofocus design.
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
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
It's Ken Rockwell Authoritative Pundit syndrome. KRAP for short.
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!
Last edited by a moderator:
Or "inverted telephoto".
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.
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..............?
It's like other parts of the anatomy..............?
Last edited by a moderator:
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"...
...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.
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
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
Attachments
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |