Architectural Photography Equipment

[simonm]

Currently looking at Sigmas thanks Tom. Also, forgive the noob question, but fast prime lenses, theyre fixed?

 

As mentioned, a good tripod will go a long way. Also consider buying a couple of fast prime lenses to add amazing glass for low cost. You may have to use your legs instead of your wrist to frame a shot, but something like a 35mm 1.8 will be around $100 and be SUPER sharp and be great in low light. That kind of speed in a fixed aperture zoom will cost you plenty.

[Tommy L]

a prime lens is a non-zoom. 'fixed aperture' means that when you slide the zoom the aperture remains the same. Its the stamp of a good lens, but you pay for it.

My photography knowledge is mainly anecdotal and some from experience. I rub shoulders with some pro's though, so the anecdotal stuff is usually more accurate...

[RyderSK]

The practical issue with prime lens is, that unless you're into specific look for the day (you can be fine taking 35 an 50 into terrain for journalist or art type photography and call it day), you either bring your own assistant with bunch of lens in his bag, or you're extremely limited by what you're going to shoot. Architecture is far more diverse in scale than portraits for example..

 

I travel (when that happens..) with 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 to cover semi-broad spectrum that's rather universal, which already require 2 large and imho quite heavy bags, it's annoying and uncomfortable. I can't imagine even bothering to add some fixed into the mix (like some nice 85 perhaps).

Let's say I would swap the zooms for 2 fixed, what would that even be ? 18 and 35 ? 24 and 50 ? Nothing would be even close to ideal for architectural photography at all.

 

So while I think starting with prime lens are excellent advice for general photography stuff, I am not convinced it's the right choice for architecture for regular non-pro person. But of course, if money matter, but you also want top quality, it's different thing but the limiting factor is imho far to severe.

[Tommy L]

The practical issue with prime lens is, that unless you're into specific look for the day (you can be fine taking 35 an 50 into terrain for journalist or art type photography and call it day), you either bring your own assistant with bunch of lens in his bag, or you're extremely limited by what you're going to shoot. Architecture is far more diverse in scale than portraits for example..

 

I travel (when that happens..) with 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 to cover semi-broad spectrum that's rather universal, which already require 2 large and imho quite heavy bags, it's annoying and uncomfortable. I can't imagine even bothering to add some fixed into the mix (like some nice 85 perhaps).

Let's say I would swap the zooms for 2 fixed, what would that even be ? 18 and 35 ? 24 and 50 ? Nothing would be even close to ideal for architectural photography at all.

 

So while I think starting with prime lens are excellent advice for general photography stuff, I am not convinced it's the right choice for architecture for regular non-pro person. But of course, if money matter, but you also want top quality, it's different thing but the limiting factor is imho far to severe.

 

yes, you are right. Its heavy. But every time Ive had to shoot for work its been out the back of my car. I cant remember walking more than 5 mins to my vantage point. Primes are also good because they tech you good habits and start to lock your knowledge and planning together.

Its not great advice from me on this one....but buy the primes anyway, they will be the fastest lenses you own and when you look through your snaps you'll always gravitate toward those shots. Dont know why.

I have some great lenses, but some of my fave shots have been taken with a a $80 canon EF 50mm.

The lens thats usually on my 60D is a Canon EFS 17-55 (about $850) and Id recommend it. I also carry a Tokina 12-24mm f4 which is ok. I just have it because its wide, good for video too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

[RyderSK]

Ok, I'll add last remark :- )

 

I don't think he mentioned being on path to become professional or use it for work though.

If he's going to practice in terrain which he wants, I am pretty sure he's in (quite bit) more walking than 5 minutes. The prime lens will sit on shelf whole year round, except for that birthday party in summer ;- )

 

Another thing is cheap primes (like 50mm ) aren't quite as excellent for architecture, as they will have (outside of actually not being very useful with narrow field of view, esp. on 1.6 crop factor) both more blurring and distortion noticeable in corners, but also heavy vignetting at fast setting. By the time you get to quality primes, you might as well have started with quality zoom as price will be close to equal.

 

I suggest proper and versatile zoom (16-35 for example; not as ideal on crop factor as it would be on FF but, still the best choice overall; or higher like the one Tom linked in the end of his post) and get anything else when you feel the need for. Why start with more instead of less and build up ?

Edited October 29, 2014 by RyderSK

[Playdo]

Great! Are they the main player in the 3rd party vendors? Like I've heard about Vivitar. You just know that you're paying a big chunk just for the name when you buy Nikkor.

 

Right now my daughter needs a mid-range telephoto; maybe up to 200mm.

 

I went to a photography art school and for the 1st 2 months the teacher made us go to Chinatown (SF) and buy a $5 plastic camera that came with a free roll of film so that we would just forget about equipment and focus on seeing.

 

In terms of quality that would go to Zeiss, but Sigma's definitely worth checking out. See if you can rent from somewhere, or buy from somewhere where returning it isn't a prob. Not a bad move by the teacher. And you see so many people walking about with big DSLRs these days. I'm sure most of the time they leave them at home, and would be happier with a high end compact camera. The quality and versatility are great these days.

 

Sigma scales into same quad digits as quality or uniqueness (like extreme telephoto lens) go up.

 

..I suggest proper and versatile zoom (16-35 for example; not as ideal on crop factor as it would be on FF but, still the best choice overall; or higher like the one Tom linked in the end of his post)

 

In a lot of cases it's cheaper in comparison to the equivalent Nikon glass. The 16-35 is a nice lens. If you have a 550D, I'd also take a good look at Canon's 10-22 (equiv to 16-35 on the 550D), and the 17-55 that Tom mentioned above. Depends what focal range you mostly shoot at. They're both great quality glass. I wouldn't worry about them being EF-S if you go full frame later. Keep them in good condition and they have good resale value.

 

It's a good idea to look through the exif details of your old photos, and see which focal range you're mostly shooting at. And also through photos on Flickr that are similar to what you're aiming for.

[Francisco Penaloza]

Hardware is always fun for all of us, I don't think Brand price tag apply any more, nowadays lower dog companies can produce as good lens and the Brand name can produce cheap crappy stuff too. Your initial question was what equipment every one will recommend. I tell you what we use at our firm, I do photography for all size projects, Hospital, High school, K8, fire stations and everything else, even though I am not a pro photographer per say, I have experience as Hobby and some small side gigs sometimes. Our company owns Canon 5D MII and mostly tree type of lenses Tilt Shif TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, Wide angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, zoom lens About EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM.

With that I can take any type of image for our projects, small tight room and large over all shots. Most of the time the 24-70 mm lens in on the camera because it covers most of the needs, but when I go for a quick site review I usually use the 17-40 because I can get those tight spaces, then a little straining in Photoshop and voila they look great. Tilt shift is an excellent lens, and it give you those "pro architectural" looks

but it create some chromatic aberration that the 17-40 does not give you. (Yes in my rendering I always add a little of aberration lol, irony of life) and yes carrying lenses in a photo shoot is a pain, if I could have a 10-125mm lens I would love to use it!!, my last photo shoot was an Hospital and yes we shoot several rooms and exterior spaces, carrying all that stuff is a pain.

 

In resume I will recommend a "decent" zoom lens first, then maybe upgrade your camera to get clean ISO, maybe after a few month playing around start to save to a full frame or something close then you'll find that specialty lenses will give you more creativity freedom, but getting crazy buying lens now, I don't think is a good choice. unless you have lots f money or you find good deals, that always happens