lens for 6D

[roygbiv]

I would if I could, but I don't have many options here in Korea. I have rented the 16-35mm Canon version 1, but the rental place doesn't have a lot of stuff. I have never heard of Samyang, but I'll keep any eye out for it.

[Colin Southern]

Colin's comments above re-confirm to me that the 14/2.8 is a very specialized lens: and one that I do not require in my lens bag.

To be honest, it only ever sees the light of day when I'm "space restricted" (eg boat cabins etc)

[William W]

Nice shot: 14mm is truly very wide - that patio space seems only about 15ft wide and you're standing not very far back from that barrel.

. . . during 2008 I picked up some Real Estate work by default to help out a colleague who was "overworked". I thought the 14/2.8 would be a useful tool for that, but with a bit of thinking and planning, there was no interior that I could not shoot with the 16 to 35.

If I were shooting (real estate) interiors all the time, I would probably seriously look at the TS-E 17 before the 14/2.8 anyway.

WW

[Colin Southern]

Nice shot: 14mm is truly very wide - that patio space seems only about 15ft wide and you're standing not very far back from that barrel.

. . . during 2008 I picked up some Real Estate work by default to help out a colleague who was "overworked". I thought the 14/2.8 would be a useful tool for that, but with a bit of thinking and planning, there was no interior that I could not shoot with the 16 to 35.

If I were shooting (real estate) interiors all the time, I would probably seriously look at the TS-E 17 before the 14/2.8 anyway.

WW

Thanks Bill,

It was for a friend who wanted to print it on to canvas and send to his daughter who was now living in Australia. I couldn't get inside the house (isn't it great how we can do favours for friends and yet they can't even meet you at their own house!), so I tucked myself into the corner and went wide; the composition reflects what she'd have seen from the breakfast table ("piece of home").

I bought the TS-E 17, but sent it back. Lovely lens, but just couldn't see myself using it. I find for interior shots the 16-35 is usually more than adequate; I just pay PAINSTAKING attention to getting the sensor plane perpendicular to the floor (parallel verticals etc), and then fix any other distortions in post. A T&S would help with elevation, but usually just lowering the tripod a touch works pretty well. To be honest, I find lighting more of a challenge than the lens; often I'll just shoot an HDR bracket and combine in post, or other times take a studio head or two (often needing a digital GND in post, but seems to give an OK result, eg ...) (16-35 @ 20mm)

[William W]

I think that we two are making a very good case for the 16 to 35/2.8 being a very useful lens. . .

As a useful and ‘all round’ lens - I still like the 24/1.4. And it is OK for interiors also.
And I agree, there are many shenanigans we can apply in the Post Production of the Photos of Interiors.

I particularly like taking the people out . . . (haha)


Circles and spheres can be troublesome to manage in Post Production: no doubt the eagle-eyed will see that in both our samples – but as you mentioned – very OK results can be got.

WW

[roygbiv]

I think that we two are making a very good case for the 16 to 35/2.8 being a very useful lens. . .

Because I am in this little corner of the world and am limited by a language barrier I have only been able to find and rent one lens I have been interested in as a first lens, that is the 16-35mm. I was happy with that lens, so that's probably what I will purchase next month. I did see the distortion. Combined with my 6D the light gathering capacity is delightful. I'm new to digital, so maybe my delight in this is behind the times. Then again there's the new Canon sensor, so I don't know.

So Colin, have I got this right: I can align the sensor plane 90 degrees to any straight line I want to preserve in the image? I like geometric patterns, so that's good to know.

Thank you all for posting images for references to lenses.

[Colin Southern]

Because I am in this little corner of the world and am limited by a language barrier I have only been able to find and rent one lens I have been interested in as a first lens, that is the 16-35mm. I was happy with that lens, so that's probably what I will purchase next month. I did see the distortion. Combined with my 6D the light gathering capacity is delightful. I'm new to digital, so maybe my delight in this is behind the times. Then again there's the new Canon sensor, so I don't know.

So Colin, have I got this right: I can align the sensor plane 90 degrees to any straight line I want to preserve in the image? I like geometric patterns, so that's good to know.

Thank you all for posting images for references to lenses.

Hi Roy,

Couple of things ...

If you want to quote what someone else has written, the easiest way is to click the "Reply with Quote" button at the bottom of their post, and then just take out the bits you DON'T want. You can also add quote tags around any phrases you like eg (without the spaces) [ q u o t e ] at the start of the text and [ / q u o t e ] at the end of it (just click edit on your post above to see how they look around what Bill wrote initially) (I put them in for you).

With regards to getting the sensor parallel. In a word, yes. If you have the camera pointing uphill then the lines at the top will convege, and if it's pointing down then they'll diverge. You see it typically with photos of very tall buildings; the photographer often doesn't have a lens wide enough to capture the top of the building with the sensor perpendicular to the ground plane, so they "point the camera up" to make everything fit - which gives the converging perspective.

Solution A if you don't want this occurring is to use a wide-angle lens like the 16-35 - keep the sensor parallel to the building (perpendicular to the ground), and then just crop off the extra parts that you don't want at the bottom (ie probably a tripod leg or your feet if you're using a 14mm lens!).

Solution B is to fix the effect in post-processing, but there is a trade-off at the image gets stretched more and more towards the top, which degrades the quality if it's destined for a big print

Solution C is to use the shift function of a tilt & shift lens. You start by getting the sensor exactly vertical as usual, then use the shift control to shift the lens upwards (note: shift, not tilt). The net effect is that what you get is the same view you would have got had you have tipped the camera up, but with the benefit of keeping the sensor parallel, so no distortion - no wasted pixels - no degradation. That's why they're also called "perspective control" lenses. In theory they sound really good - and they are - but they're somewhat of a specialty lens, and to date, only available in 17, 24, 45,and 90mm focal lengths - so not as versatile as a zoom. In summary, you don't need one! (I only have the 90mm which I use for art reproduction).

[William W]

Hi Roy,

. . . With regards to getting the sensor parallel. In a word, yes. If you have the camera pointing uphill then the lines at the top will convege, and if it's pointing down then they'll diverge. You see it typically with photos of very tall buildings; the photographer often doesn't have a lens wide enough to capture the top of the building with the sensor perpendicular to the ground plane, so they "point the camera up" to make everything fit - which gives the converging perspective. . .

. . . that's one of the reasons that I posted the "before and after" images.

Note the divergence of the parallel verticals as they near the top of the frame in the before image - that is because I was pointing the camera downward.

***

. . . Solution B is to fix the effect in post-processing, but there is a trade-off at the image gets stretched more and more towards the top, [if the camera is pointed upward] which degrades the quality if it's destined for a big print . . .

. . . and you might note that my corrected image was stretched more towards the bottom.

Note the:
> base of pillar bottom left becomes much bigger
> leather chair middle left gets elongated
> circular glass topped table becomes an ellipse
> little black square on floor at left and bottom of main stairs becomes a rectangle


WW

[roygbiv]

Thank you Colin.

[roygbiv]

Thank you William.

[roygbiv]

Roy here. I have not been active on the site lately, except for trying to post some images and finding the files were too large. I purchased the 16-35 USM L 2. I am very pleased with the lens. It's wide and sharp, so it suits my taste well. I have also rented a 50mm 1.2 and an 85mm 1.2. I have enjoyed both of those for the bokeh they produce. I also found when using them that my 16-35 is much more useful. Thanks to everyone for the conversation, especially William and Adrian for discussing the 16-35. I wish I could post images here, but I'm unhappy with the results when I record a small file. So I'm keeping my camera set to record sharp images, which are pleasing to see on my computer screen.

[William W]

Good Ho!