# Architectural/urban advice and lens choice.



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

As the title mentions really. I'm looking for advice and tips on what to and what not to do when attempting to take pictures in a city, what makes a good photo as such. 

I'll be using a Nikon D70, with a 24/120mm lens, although I keep hanging my nose over a nifty 50 and a sigma 10/20. I'm just curious as to wether the prime lens would actually be of any use. 

Sorry that this question is a bit open. 

Ed.


----------



## EddieB (May 13, 2006)

Do you have a Siggy 10-20? You have to be really careful that the body of the camaera is kept vertical otherwise you can get some horrendously bad distortion (if that's the terminology) with the 10-20.

I love mine for landscape work but I personally find though that when out and about in Newcastle I lean towards my 17-50 or even to my 55-250.


----------



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

No I don't have one, I was considering it though. Perhaps for the wrong reasons? You would pick the 17-50 for urban shots then? 

As a newb, would I notice a difference between a lens such as that and my 24-120?


----------



## EddieB (May 13, 2006)

The extra 7mm would help - doesn't sound like a lot but it is! Also a prime lens gets you to think about composition a bit more and moving around! 

The 10-20 is a great lens but you'll get annoyed with street furniture. 

Can you not lend some glass or meet up with some local togs to get an idea what you want?


----------



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

I can appreciate that the extra 7mm would!

Quite possibly, however living in rather rural area's doesn't always make it easy. 

When you talk about the prime, is this simply because your restricted to that focal length? So you have to zoom with your feet and think more?


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

If you're dropping the sort of money even a Sigma UWA lens commands, you should have some good software to counteract the inherent lens distortion.
Been a while since I bothered with PS, but now I've got the Sony, I will be looking carefully at what software is available and can do.

Aside from Aperture, I'm liking DxO Optic Pro 7/8, and Lens Fix.
Need to look at the plug-ins for Aperture, and some other software.
Sony offers Image Data Converter for RAW, mainly, but I'll have to spend time seeing how it stacks up against the other contenders.

The point of that slight excursion, is to say don't overly worry about the lens, as there is probably some software/plug-in that'll have a preset to straighten up the resultant ****** building walls.
If the lens has the sharpness and contrast, and colour you prefer, then go for it.


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

50mm is quite long on a crop body like the D70, you'd probably find a 35 f/1.8 would be of more use.


----------



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

PJS said:


> If you're dropping the sort of money even a Sigma UWA lens commands, you should have some good software to counteract the inherent lens distortion.
> Been a while since I bothered with PS, but now I've got the Sony, I will be looking carefully at what software is available and can do.
> 
> Aside from Aperture, I'm liking DxO Optic Pro 7/8, and Lens Fix.
> ...


Hadn't even considered this! Does the UWA distort that much then? By distort we mean bendy around the edges?


----------



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

Glaschu said:


> 50mm is quite long on a crop body like the D70, you'd probably find a 35 f/1.8 would be of more use.


Ahhh yes it would be the equivalent of a 75mm because of the 1.5x crop?


----------



## Ric (Feb 4, 2007)

If you are looking at UWA go for the Tokina 11-16mm, the BEST UWA lens for crop sensor body.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

What about the Sigma 10-20 and 12-24?
And even a pre-owned Nikkor 12-24?

Some interesting reading over on Ken Rockwell's site, and he's a Nikon man.


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

edthedrummer said:


> Ahhh yes it would be the equivalent of a 75mm because of the 1.5x crop?


Got it one :thumb:

The Tokina 11-16 suggested above is a good choice if it's a UWA you're after, the build quality is a lot less hit-or-miss than with Sigma too.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

edthedrummer said:


> Hadn't even considered this! Does the UWA distort that much then? By distort we mean bendy around the edges?


Can do - depends on the manufacturer.
Some are flat frontal glass, so you can still use a screw-on filter, others are quite the bulbous front end, so no chance of fitting a regular filter.
All lenses will have a distortion element which various software will have a lens profile that you can enable, and see how that affects the image.


----------



## EddieB (May 13, 2006)

This was from my first trip out with my 10-20 - bare in mind this was 12 months ago and have progressed a LONG way from here... gives you an idea of the effect you get. All can be correct in LR4 but still I personally prefer to get as much correct in camera.

I think you would find that you would benefit far more from a good piece of editing software such as Lightroom. Helped me no end - although I did spend the first 6 months playing with the presets and creating all sorts of hideous creations.


----------



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

EddieB said:


> This was from my first trip out with my 10-20 - bare in mind this was 12 months ago and have progressed a LONG way from here... gives you an idea of the effect you get. All can be correct in LR4 but still I personally prefer to get as much correct in camera.
> 
> I think you would find that you would benefit far more from a good piece of editing software such as Lightroom. Helped me no end - although I did spend the first 6 months playing with the presets and creating all sorts of hideous creations.


Okay so I can see the lighthouse leans towards the centre, there are also lines sweeping across the sky, although I'm not sure if that's the effect of the lens or the effect of my screen?

Lightroom, what is actually possible with this? I gather its more for the adjustment of levels and stuff, not that I understand any more than that.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

At only 90kB, I'm surmising those arcs are compression artefacts.
There may be something there, at a low level, but with greater compression to reduce the file size, a lot of info is chucked out.
That may explain why it exacerbates the problem.
Certainly not seen it on other photos taken with it - http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?idlens=225
Click the link for sample images posted in the forum, some absolute corkers there.

Similarly - http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/


----------



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

So what sort of software is required to straighten the image out? Is this typical of all wide angle lenses? 

I'm not itching to buy anything, I want to know all the pitfalls first! And besides, I have so much to learn with the body itself! Hence the reason of this thread.


----------



## EddieB (May 13, 2006)

PJS said:


> At only 90kB, I'm surmising those arcs are compression artefacts.
> There may be something there, at a low level, but with greater compression to reduce the file size, a lot of info is chucked out.
> That may explain why it exacerbates the problem.
> Certainly not seen it on other photos taken with it - http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?idlens=225
> ...


I compressed it out of LR and when uploaded to here it compressed it again. I didnt really want to upload it to Flickr for the world to see!


----------



## EddieB (May 13, 2006)

edthedrummer said:


> So what sort of software is required to straighten the image out? Is this typical of all wide angle lenses?
> 
> I'm not itching to buy anything, I want to know all the pitfalls first! And besides, I have so much to learn with the body itself! Hence the reason of this thread.


You can download LR4 from Adobe for a 30 day free trial - suggest you do this and see how you get on with it.

I'll ask my mate who has a Canon 10-22mm to see if he any issues with it.

Would also suggest you have a look round Flickr - into some of the urban/architecture groups to see what sort of focal length they are using!


----------



## pe2dave (Oct 11, 2012)

edthedrummer said:


> Ahhh yes it would be the equivalent of a 75mm because of the 1.5x crop?


Yes, that's it.

Try your shorter and longer lens with a simple building and see the effect it has on verticals? Say the edge of a building. The 'distortion' produced may or may not please you. Stepping back and using a longer lens changes that. See what you get and understand that before buying (or hiring for a week) a shorter or longer lens. Architectural photography can get expensive with tilt shift lens's, but can be achieved quite well with more consideration for perspective and distance with your existing lens.

HTH


----------

