Lense for architecture (houses and mid-size buildings)

[Tabazan]

Hello,


What would be your suggestion of a very sharp lens for shots of small/mid sized buildings (and having the whole building on the picture) ?


I don't want a tilt-shift lense (and will take some pics with the 10-22) but I tought about :


17-55
24-70 L
24-105 L
or ... 70-200 f/4 IS ??


I know it depends also on the space I have beteween the lens and the house, but it's more quality that matter in that case.


Thanks for your suggestions

[HiFiGuy1]

If you have a crop body, like I do, the EF-S 17-55 is very highly regarded. I personally have the EF 17-40, and really like it. Either way, I think that you will like having a shorter focal length. The EF 16-35 is phenomenal, too, though maybe not quite as versatile as the 17-55. In my limited experience, I think you will find it more difficult to get the shot you want consistently if you can't go wider than 24mm, even though both lenses you listed are excellent in their own right. To me, the 70-200 family are non-starters for your stated purpose.

[Tabazan]

Thanks a lot, that's much clear for me.


The request concerns a lens for a 50D.


Even though the 70-200 is a very appealing thing, yes, I think you're right.


The 16-35 seems a bit short to me, as is the 17-40. I want to avoid entering the wideangle aspect for these pictures, but much more keeping the rectangular building on rectangular picture thing, if you see what I mean.


Now, regarding the 17-55 (well placed on my list, also because of the stab), and as a non "L" for the ... bottom price of a "L" ... does it equals "L" sharpness and quality of for example, 24-70 or 24-105) ?

[richm]

I love my 24-105, and it continues to be my most used lens. You can find them at a slight discount as many were sold as "kit" lenses with the 5d and 5dII. I also bought a 70-200 2.8IS this spring and it is remarkable, but not necessarily what I'd recommend for "building" photos, as you'd need some distance. As you mentioned, the 10-22 is fantastic. I have borrowed a copy my bro-in-law owns and have taken many of my favorite shots with that lens. For me, the 10-22 is next on my list, and would just about complete all my needs. (OK, the next gen 100-400 would quickly jump onto my list once that comes out, just don't tell the "minister of finance" if you know what I mean.)


I HAD a 40d, but sold it to a friend this week, and have a 7d on order. I wanted the micro focus adjustment, improved AF, but could live without the video -- oh well. Now I just wish it would show up, as the leaves in NH are getting very pretty ;-)

[Backland Photography]

Hey Tabazan,


2 years ago we were on a shoot in England and used the 17-55 ALLOT on a 1.6 (XTi) crop body. The results were very good. Not much more barreling at 17mm than one would expect on this body. We have found our copy of this lens is tack sharp.


The problem you may find with wide angle lenses are their inherent tendency to make your image barrel. The only way we have found around this is to use a T&S lens. We use the 24mm.


We also have to 24-70 and like it as well. But be for warned that this is a heavy lens. If you are not used carrying this weight, after some time you may not like this lens so much (that is the price to pay for so much glass).


For your stated purposes I think the 70-200 is useless,.... unless you are far enough away to frame, but the IQ (we have the 70-200 2.8 IS) is outstanding, and it is said on some web sites that the F-4 is slightly better in this regard! The bonus is that F-4 is less money if you decide to purchase.


While in England we used a 10-20mm for many indoor and outdoor shots too, but the results were as you would expect.


We use an XTi and 1DMK11 bodies - which have a crop factor of 1.3.


Hope this helps...

[Tabazan]

Thanks, very interesting.


I've heard lots of good things about the 17-55.


If I may ask ... knowing that I must get away from "extreme sharpness peeping syndrom" (only the picture counts ;-) , I wonder if "L" lenses on the 50D on a 1.6, makes so much sense (I would say yes - the more expensive, the best - , but ... some work I did with the 10-22 or 85mm non-L seemed quite good ) . I don't talk about using "cheap" lenses, but high grade non-L.


Well, I don't mind about external quality or look (some plastic is not a problem as far as glass is ok and the price/quality is right... and I often work with the awful Peleng, so ...).


I didn't find any convincing face-to-face image comparison (for the same lenght) about that. What's your advice ?


For example, the new 18-135 or 15-85 specially made for 1.6 will not exploit the big amount of Mpixels of the 50d better than a FF made lense ? I know that, logically, that should be to the 50d to exploit the lenses but because a part of the L lens is not used by the 1.6 camera is it a right choice ?

[Backland Photography]

Tabazan,


Thanx for the reply.


My personal opinion, 'it's all about the glass'.


Not to insult, I think it's the right thing for you todo your own investigation to determine if a lens is right for you. You are the one who knows your needs and shooting style. After all, it could be a VERY LARGE investment and you are the one paying for it (if for example; you buy on some ones recommendation and you are unhappy, then you may find yourself in the position were you need to sell our investment, usually at a loss, regardless if the lens is 'L' or not).


We are more than happy to tell you of our own experiences with the glass we have, but it would be negligent to tell you something we do not have first hand experience with.


So... bodies may come and go and unless you sell it, your glass will stay with you through it all, regardless if it's 'L' or not. That being said, 'L glass' brings to the table many admirable features. Quality in build and optics including fast f stops and good resale value (if it is still in good shape) are the real things that make these lenses so desirable. You might read on some sites that some 'L' glass is not worth the money one might pay and that is likely true. In our opinion, generally speaking an investment in white/black 'L' lenses will do you no wrong if the budget will allow.


An EF-S lens (like our 17-55mm IS USM) will not fit to a 1D body, I do not know if this type of lens will fit onto a 50D as we do not own that body. We use this lens exclusively on an XTi body. If you do plan to purchase a 1D in the future you might want to consider the cost of lenses that are designated EF-S and then the replacement cost to fit a 1D,.. if that body configuration is in your future.


Because all EF lenses will fit onto EF-S mounts I would say any 'L' glass that you decide fits your needs makes sense.


We shoot with a Sigma 10-20mm 1:4-5.6 DC HSM and are very pleased with the results. So for us the cost/performance of this lens out weighed an 'L' lens. There fore an 'L' designation did not mean for us that the 'L' version was the only way to go.


I'm sorry I don't know the term "Peleng". We live a sheltered life in Saskatchewan Canada and on our travels in this country and else were we have not heard this term.


Tabazan,


I'm not sure I completely understand your last paragraph so this is difficult for me to answer. [We have only recently,(in the scheme of things, 2 years ago), made the leap to digital from film]. I can say that it really seems to depend on the image quality you are expecting, in regards to the size of print you are producing, from the pixel count of the sensor you have, clear as mud? I have read that the more pixels one has equals morerecorded information(simply speaking). This is a technical issue that we do not concern ourselves with as the images we produce with our kit are everything we need for our purposes. We concern ourselves with the proper focal length in regards to the subject. There is lots of information out there on this very topic and I would encourage you to search high and low as we have done to find your answers. It is also said that there is a 'sweet spot' on lenses, and that it is in the center of the lens{I tend to agree}. A 1.6 crop factor will reproduce an image that is overall smaller in size(field of view) compared to a FF sensor but the 'sweet spot' remains the same for the given lens.