Manual focus Nikkor wide-angles useless for architecture?

[benjiboy]

Unless you're a professional architectural photographer it's not something you need to worry about, and if you were you wouldn't be shooting with 35mm cameras anyway, because you need the movements to control perspective, rising front, swing back etc.. that large format cameras have.

 

[Alex Muir]

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

I have the more recent version of this lens which, I'm sure, is 28mm f3.5. I haven't used it extensively, but I have not been aware of significant barrel distortion. I have used it to make pictures of buildings, although I'm not a pro, and architecture is not my speciality. I don't doubt you have experienced the problem mentioned, and I wonder if the optical formula changed between your example and the more recent version. I know that the shift mechanism was revised and the quoted maximum aperture changed. I suppose for architecture the main weakness is that the shift is the only movement available, when a range of movements would allow more options.

Alex

 

[flavio81]

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

That's a great camera!
The 50/1.8's best aperture is f4 and f5.6, by the way. Enjoy the Canon FD system! You want to know which inexpensive (undervalued) canon FD lenses are out there?

- 28mm f2.8 and 28mm f3.5 "old" FD (breechlock lenses)
- 35mm f3.5
- any 100mm lens
- any 135mm lens

... also all FL lenses are inexpensive and most of them are very good optically as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree that many phone snappers and television camera people over use and misuse the wide angle lens thus forcing the rest of us to view distorted photographs.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's difficult to engineer wide-angle designs devoid of distortion, esp if they have to be reverse-telephoto to allow room for a mirror between
the lens and the film plane. Besides, serious architectural shots should be done with a real view camera, where all kinds of corrective movements are available. But for casual purposes like web work, I'd like to own a Nikkor PC lens. One of these days ....

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I agree that many phone snappers and television camera people over use and misuse the wide angle lens thus forcing the rest of us to view distorted photographs.

Yes, pincushion & barrel distortion as well as chromatic aberrations are very common even in "commercial" work. Some of those kit zooms on the prosumer "get professional results!" cameras are awful, and the owners/users don't even know it.

 

[chip j]

That's a great camera!
The 50/1.8's best aperture is f4 and f5.6, by the way. Enjoy the Canon FD system! You want to know which inexpensive (undervalued) canon FD lenses are out there?

- 28mm f2.8 and 28mm f3.5 "old" FD (breechlock lenses)
- 35mm f3.5
- any 100mm lens
- any 135mm lens

... also all FL lenses are inexpensive and most of them are very good optically as well.

Thanks, Flavio! I just ordered a 28mm 2.8, & will be looking for a 35m 3.5 & also FLs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found that to 20mm and 21mm lenses for 35mm while they are wonderful to use, are of limited use.

 

[chip j]

I found that to 20mm and 21mm lenses for 35mm while they are wonderful to use, are of limited use.

My 14, 17, 18, & 20 are what I use extensively for antique cars. Distortion doesn't matter much there.

 

[ic-racer]

...barrel distortion,..... I have a set of these from 20mm to 50mm inclusive,....

How bad are they? Can you post an example?

 

[chip j]

It's a slight curve where there should be a straight line Ken Rockwell has a perfect example of this in his review of the Nikon 20mm 3.5.

 

[miha]

The 28mm ais f/2.8 CRC Nikkor has negligible distortion and is regarded as one of the best (if not the best) in its class.

 

[benjiboy]

The Tamron Adaptall SP 17mm f3.5 is the best rectilinear ultra wide angle lens I have ever owned .

 

[flavio81]

I just compared today my PC-Nikkor 35/3.5 versus the PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 (latest version) and the latter has much less distortion than the former.

Once you extend about 10mm sideways on the ancient f3.5, the corresponding edge of the image gets comically stretched !!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I found that to 20mm and 21mm lenses for 35mm while they are wonderful to use, are of limited use.

+1.
I have a 20mm Nikkor UD, as I mentioned above I've had really great results from it in instances where no other lens would do, but I definitely regard it as a special purpose lens. Generally, the 28 is as wide as I go even a 24 is becoming a handful. Also for me the 24 falls into a too-wide or not-wide-enough area.

 

[benjiboy]

+1 I use my 35 and 28 mm lenses far more and are more useful for my general photography, my 24mm and 17mm I only use when I feel I have a particular need for them.

 

[chip j]

The Tamron Adaptall SP 17mm f3.5 is the best rectilinear ultra wide angle lens I have ever owned .

Yes, I have that.

 

[chip j]

The 28mm ais f/2.8 CRC Nikkor has negligible distortion and is regarded as one of the best (if not the best) in its class.

Yes, I know; but I have a Vivitar Series One 28mm 1.9 that has no distortion either.

 

[dynachrome]

I saw a reference to the Canon FD wide angle lenses. The 28/2.8 FD SC is an excellent lens. It is better than the earlier 28/3.5 and also better than the later 28/2.8 New FD. The earlier version of the FD SC has an aperture lock lever on the back and is heavier. The later version has no lever and is lighter. It has more plastic in the barrel but the same glass.

 

[narsuitus]

... I have a Vivitar Series One 28mm 1.9 that has no distortion either.

I am not surprised. I have a Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 that equals and slightly exceeds the image quality produced by my 28mm f/2.8 Nikon AIS and my Pentax 28mm f/3.5 Takumar.

https://flic.kr/p/9e2eh6

 

[Knjy]

Try. You may be surprised at how a great shot reduces any other faults; so much so that you will not hear this: "Wow that is a great picture, pity about the barrel distortion at the extreme edges". Go for it, you will find a way.

 

[chip j]

It BUGS ME! Most other viewers wouldn't care, probably, but I am engaged in photographic masturbation.

 

[benjiboy]

I saw a reference to the Canon FD wide angle lenses. The 28/2.8 FD SC is an excellent lens. It is better than the earlier 28/3.5 and also better than the later 28/2.8 New FD. The earlier version of the FD SC has an aperture lock lever on the back and is heavier, the later version has no lever and is lighter. It has more plastic in the barrel but the same glass.

I would depute this statement, I have had both these lenses for more than 25 years, and the later bayonet version is just as durable as the breech lock earlier one, lighter weight as are all the polymer lens barrels, and also quicker to change, are multi coated and less subject to flare problems than the single coated SC ones.

 

[dynachrome]

I'm not saying that one is more durable than the other. The first version of the SC is heavier in weight. In all I must have five of the SC lenses and three of the New FD ones. My experience is that the SC 28/2.8s are sharper than the New FD 28/2.8s. It could be that the New FD lenses have somewhat more advanced coatings. Canon FD lenses as late as those marked SC are unlikely to actually have a single coating. They probably have a less advanced multi-layer coating. My 28/2 FD lens is an SSC. I use it when I need the extra speed or a brighter finder in lower light. It is a good performer. I don't know how much better the coating may be on the later 28/2 New FD.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm not saying that one is more durable than the other. The first version of the SC is heavier in weight. In all I must have five of the SC lenses and three of the New FD ones. My experience is that the SC 28/2.8s are sharper than the New FD 28/2.8s. It could be that the New FD lenses have somewhat more advanced coatings. Canon FD lenses as late as those marked SC are unlikely to actually have a single coating. They probably have a less advanced multi-layer coating. My 28/2 FD lens is an SSC. I use it when I need the extra speed or a brighter finder in lower light. It is a good performer. I don't know how much better the coating may be on the later 28/2 New FD.

S.C (Spectre coated) by definition means it's single coated according to Canon, SSC (Super Spectra Coated ) FD lenses are all multi coated, the only new type FD lens that is SC single coated is the 50mm f1.8
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm