I was interested in the discussion(May 1st 2008) that anything wider than 20mm is too wide and un-natural for exterior and interiors? I shoot bathrooms and tight areas and love the drama of wide angle exteriors but never owned a lens wider than 18mm.

Is any one using a 14mm lens and is it just too wide for architecture? I am thinking of going FX with a Nikon14-24mm and find the barrel distortion at 12mm in DX with a Nikon 12-24mm that i own unacceptable.

Most interested in your opinions.

I think the discussion was referring to 24mm as the widest acceptable focal length. Your post would have probably attracted more attention in the tech forum, but in any event the 14-24 is the best thing going for 35mm DSLR. As I said earlier the inability to connect a filter is my beef with it. Otherwise it's a wiener.

If you're stuck in small spaces like bathrooms and you want to see a lot of the room, then the UWA is going to be your only choice.

John - Lee Filters claims to have a way to use filters with the 14-24 according to this post on FM -

"Thank you for your inquiry. We can fit the Nikon 14-24G with our FK100
push-on filter holder and a shim that brings its diameter down to 98mm
(FKD100/98). This configuration vignettes slightly at 14mm, but it's the
best we can come up with because the petal shade cannot be removed."
Sincerely,
John Adler
LEE Filters USA / Screen Shade
(800)576-5055

Med format digital back 24 xl

quote:

Originally posted by John MacLean Photography:
[qb] ...As I said earlier the inability to connect a filter is my beef with it. Otherwise it's a wiener...[/qb]

Uhhh, I think you mean a "winner." lol

quote:

Originally posted by John Gibbel:
[qb] Med format digital back 24 xl

[/qb]

Nice bathroom. Where was that shot?

I've got the 14-24 and it's a great lens. At 14mm on a D3 you gotta shoot with care or things will get very unnatural looking.

We sold our house about a year and half ago and bought another and our realtor offered to come over and take the pictures to which I laughed and told her I thought I could do a better job. Right off the bat she gave me the admonition that "professional" photographers always try to use wide angles that make the rooms look wrong and to not do that.

At the time I had Nikon D2x and the 12-24 lens and used that for nearly every shot and a lot of them were at its widest focal length. So that would be equivalent to about 18mm on a full frame camera. When I gave her the pictures she was very happy and didn't notice anything that looked out of the ordinary to her. Later she was surprised to learn that I had used such a wide angle.

I wouldn't purposely use an extreme wide angle and would choose a lens that gives a more normal look, but sometimes the room is so small like John MacLean mentioned that you may not have any choice.

Greg, I should have been more specific. I was referring to a polarizing filter.

JG, beautiful shot, but 24mm on MF is a bit wider than on 35mm FF.

Marshal, "wiener" - I was trying to be cute!

I was thinking I was on topic with the bathroom more then the lens


Marshal
Shot was in the Bay Area.

When that Voigtl�nder 15mm popped up many years ago, there were suddenly many more super wide images. I generally have not gone wider than 20mm on 35mm (DSLR), though it is a matter of choice on whether or not it is appropriate. Some clients might want that ultra wide look, while others will want something that seems more natural.

Someone posted a few stitched interior shots with a wide view, which I think was 120� or close to that. When it is framed as a more panoramic final, then it seems more natural to me. In other words, if I used a 14mm or 15mm, I might be tempted to crop the top and the bottom to present an image I might find more appealing.

JG, oh ya 10-4

quote:

Originally posted by John Gibbel:
[qb] Med format digital back 24 xl

[/qb]

That is a nice shot John.

I havesaid this before but I am definitely not going to ever create a shot like the one of that bathroom. It is so distorted it belongs more in an MC Esher book and having that cuboid bathtub, grid floor and the kind of contrasts in lighting makes it worse.
I understand clients ask for that kind of image but I just tell them how wide my lens goes and that's that. I just did a series of stitched views for Apple, which was fine but would never go wider than 20mm equivalent fov. The digitar lens has minimal distortion but that word is used because that is what it is, distortion. Nothing distorted ever looks good in life.

Recently, a client asked for a really wide view of a lobby that included the desk on the far right and the view on the far left. I shot it to include what she wanted but then she asked if I could get in closer but keep both elements at either side and with less distortion! Some people's idea of what is possible is just mindblowing.

A friend of mine just did a car interior shoot and 1 hour from the end of the shoot, a senior clinet walked on set, shoved his iphone into te car at various points and said "this is what I want. You must be able to copy the angles I can get on my iphone"!


Adrian

Wonderful stories Adrian. I never cease to be amazed at what clients will request. Best anecdote I can recall was from an audio designer friend of mine, who once told someone: with that one speaker over there, and the other two over there, and the speakers at ceiling level, if you sit inside the fireplace you can get the full surround sound experience.

Adrian has good points but many clients really go for the wide/contrasty look in Johns sample.

It could be cropped at the top and bottom to make it look less wide-realestate-looking but the light is pretty much what the residential designers/developers/realestate people are looking for.

There could be less light in the front right of the cube/bath but many buyers wouldn't know the difference.

Bottom line is serve your clients.

You can say "well I would know the difference" and satisfy your own needs for you portfolio but if you are hired you should shoot for the needs of your client . . and it appears John did just that.