M benefits for architectural shoot

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I couldn't care less for my own needs, but try telling that to people who love super wides and buy separate lenses (Leica brand and others) including 15 ,18 and/or 21.

 

Or, for that matter, people who own 28 and 35mm lenses, or 35 and 40mm lenses.

 

Besides, the flexibility and convenience of operation and framing with a zoom is beneficial for many, regardless the mm differences. Especially with M240 EVF/LV.

 

Jeff

 

 

Jeff, many thanks for making the point.

The WATE is an excellent lens to also use on non-RF cameras.

BTW, by using the WATE on FF, APS-C, and mFT cameras I get coverage from 16 to 42 mm.

And I get IBIS, i.e. In-Body Image Stabilization.

[AlanG]

Since you don't really explain what kinds of spaces you are shooting or what the use is, I will just give some general observations. (I have been an architectural shooter for more than 30 years.)

 

Some clients such as home builders often want to show maximum space and prefer wider shots. Whereas interior designers may be more interested in showing fabrics, colors, details, and may want some tighter shots or vignettes of rooms. Of course this is not a hard rule but one should always be prepared for either approach.

 

When I shot on 4x5 (65mm lens) and 6x9 cm (47mm lens,) I found the 35mm equivalent of a 20mm lens (with shift) was a pretty common approach for overviews. Using as wide as a 15mm or wider would certainly not be uncommon. I even stitch much wider shots today... another approach you can do.

 

So if you don't want to invest in Canon's 17 and 24mm TSE lenses and Canon or Sony bodies, continue using your 15mm lens... even aiming up or down when necessary and then correcting the convergence in post. By using such a wide lens you can have some leeway in tilting and subsequent cropping after making the correction. And of course longer lenses can be used too.

 

Unless you have the need for very large images, the camera is not much of a factor as long as you can get the view you want. The most important factors are camera placement and framing of the space, composition of furniture and props (feel free to re-arrange,) good exposure and color knowledge and technique, lighting (existing or supplemented) and creative thinking.

Edited March 14, 2015 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wparsonsgisnet]

Here's a shot that's kind of fun.

 

Of course, what I *should* have done before starting this project was to ask what lens setting users of this CV lens use on the M. I haven't bothered to take the fringing out of the edges.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Mornnb]

Big deal. 5mm. Not much of a zoom.

 

In terms of viewing angle, it's 107 degrees to 92 degrees. Which is quite a lot.

 

Thanks Bill. It's good to hear rom you.

The WATE also works correctly on my Sony A7R, a 36 MP full frame camera.

No corner smearing or discoloration to speak of.

Certainly not worse than on my M9 that I use with the Frankenfinder. :-)

 

The Sony A7r is a really good choice as an architecture camera. It handles Canon tilt shifts and Leica wide angles well, and with a higher resolution than either Canon or Leica provide with their sensors. A better manual focus system that Canon provides, and a better EVF than Leica provides. With 14 stops of dynamic range you can handle shadow at the street level on a sunny day without blowing the sky. I own an A7r for this purpose.

 

All of what you ever to here is absolutely very helpful, and while my Leica's are the ultimate tool to inspire my photographic joy, I do not find them particularly the right choice for architectural shoots.

 

While you may have technically been shooting something that could be defined as architecture, a real architectural shoot is much different. You would not use a 15mm lens for it. You would also be shooting on a tilt shift more likely. But as you mention you do not do this very often, I can see why investing in specific type of gear like that would be fairly wasteful.

 

The really nice thing about that CV 15mm lens you have there is that it is really great at keeping lines straight for such a wide lens. I shoot all Leica lenses on my M's at the moment, but I really like a lot of CV lenses and that 15mm is a gem. I would own it if I ever shot that wide.

 

Anyhow, don't let my technical mumbo jumbo sound negative. I am an architectural photographer by trade and can be pretty nerdy on the subject. Would love to see some of the photos though. All the best.

 

You are correct, and as I've already stated in this thread what's really needed is the TS-E 17mm Canon lens and sadly Leica offers nothing comparable.

 

However, for interiors an ordinary wide angle with low distortion is what is required. And the WATE is quite ideal for interiors.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Mornnb

[Peter Branch]

I believe there's a 19mm R lens that is very nice

 

But you might not like the wavy-line distortion.

 

After a while it will drive you mad.

[AlanG]

You are correct, and as I've already stated in this thread what's really needed is the TS-E 17mm Canon lens and sadly Leica offers nothing comparable.

 

Neither does anyone else. There must be a reason since the 17TS-E has been out for a few years now. BTW, Canon is introducing the 5Ds which has 50MP. Can't say if the 17TS-E will give much more resolution on that body than on the A7r. The Canon 17 and 24 TSE have low distortion, low c/a, and low vignetting, so are ideal for architecture.

Edited March 14, 2015 by AlanG

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In terms of viewing angle, it's 107 degrees to 92 degrees. Which is quite a lot.

 

That has nothing to do with trying to use it as a zoom lens. Simply put it is multi focal length lens. A great one at that.

[tthorne]

Neither does anyone else. There must be a reason since the 17TS-E has been out for a few years now. BTW, Canon is introducing the 5Ds which has 50MP. Can't say if the 17TS-E will give much more resolution on that body than on the A7r. The Canon 17 and 24 TSE have low distortion, low c/a, and low vignetting, so are ideal for architecture.

 

I have the 24mm TSE L2 and the 17mm TSE. The 17mm may come out of the bag once or twice a year. That thing is just too wide for architectural shoots. I think that kind of focal length may be for someone who is looking to push the perspective, but not when you work with architects, interior designers, and commercial spaced for advertising where accuracy is really important. My 24mm TSE L2 lives on my A7II and previously my other A7 cameras.

[tthorne]

 

 

You are correct, and as I've already stated in this thread what's really needed is the TS-E 17mm Canon lens and sadly Leica offers nothing comparable.

 

However, for interiors an ordinary wide angle with low distortion is what is required. And the WATE is quite ideal for interiors.

 

Ordinary wide angles are problematic for interiors unless there is a very dramatic ceiling and it is vaulted or simply very high. Other than that, wide angles end up turning flat ceilings into 1/3 of the photo which is unattractive.

[Mornnb]

I have the 24mm TSE L2 and the 17mm TSE. The 17mm may come out of the bag once or twice a year. That thing is just too wide for architectural shoots. I think that kind of focal length may be for someone who is looking to push the perspective,

 

Depends on what you're shooting. I live in a big city and have buildings of 12, 20 or even 50 stories to shoot. The 24mm doesn't give enough working room and I find myself rarely using the 24mm.

The 17mm TS-E is a great lens for new world cities of the type in America, Canada, Australia etc.

 

Ordinary wide angles are problematic for interiors unless there is a very dramatic ceiling and it is vaulted or simply very high. Other than that, wide angles end up turning flat ceilings into 1/3 of the photo which is unattractive.

 

 

16mm to 21mm. Is a good range to cover both small and large interiors.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Mornnb

[AlanG]

I have the 24mm TSE L2 and the 17mm TSE. The 17mm may come out of the bag once or twice a year. That thing is just too wide for architectural shoots. I think that kind of focal length may be for someone who is looking to push the perspective, but not when you work with architects, interior designers, and commercial spaced for advertising where accuracy is really important. My 24mm TSE L2 lives on my A7II and previously my other A7 cameras.

 

Different strokes for different folk. I use the 17 quite a lot.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I'm pretty well decided on a WATE. I want a 21 -- but don't necessarily need a 'lux -- n I need a wide lens. I have never been happy with the CV15 (how does one accept a lens not made by Leica????) and will then have both the focal lengths I would like, in a *Real* Leica lens.

 

And now with Live View on the M, I don't need a Frankenfinder.

 

The CV is ok at infinity but just doesn't cut it at closer focus points. The bokeh is unattractive.

 

Regards to all, Bill

[Duane Pandorf]

I'm pretty well decided on a WATE. I want a 21 -- but don't necessarily need a 'lux -- n I need a wide lens. I have never been happy with the CV15 (how does one accept a lens not made by Leica????) and will then have both the focal lengths I would like, in a *Real* Leica lens.

 

And now with Live View on the M, I don't need a Frankenfinder.

 

The CV is ok at infinity but just doesn't cut it at closer focus points. The bokeh is unattractive.

 

Regards to all, Bill

 

I am currently renting a WATE to reshoot the interior of my home that's going on the market to sell. Have shot with the 21SEM but wanted the 16 & 18 focal length option. I rented the Franken Finder too.

[plewislambert]

If we're talking about using R lenses via the adapter an obvious candidate for consideration is the 28/2.8 PC SA.

 

Was this made by Leica or was it bought from Schneider?

 

I have used an Olympus 35mm Zuiko shift on an M9 before changing it to a Nikkor 28mm PC. I preferred the Zuiko but the angle wasn't wide enough. (There is an expensive 24mm Zuiko)

 

I would say the Nikkor is very competent but it's nothing like as sharp as my Elmarit 28mm. It can be hand held but a tripod and spirit level is better. I doubt I would get away with that inside a London museum/cathedral/public hall.

 

Recently using the M240 I have taken building exteriors and interiors using Voigtlander 12mm and 15mm with VF2 + Live view. The edge discolouration and vignetting I experienced with these on my M9 is less in evidence on my M240. Coding in as 21mm f2.8 pre-aspheric is helpful - I spend less time in P.shop.

 

Of course, the absence of shift means either I step back and get the building in the top half of the image with a little straightening in P.Shop so it becomes a DX image or I try to fill most of the frame and spend a lot more time in P.Shop

 

I used these lenses previously on my M9 with supplementary viewfinders, but I sold the latter on moving to the M240 with VF2

 

As an aside, I just bought a good and cheap 35-70mm Minolta f3.5, said to be the basis for the Leica R lens 35-70 f3.5. On an adapter and a tripod it gives sharp results stopped down to f5.6 or f8. Handheld not so sharp but a high shutter speed might solve that.

 

All these reflex lenses seem big and clunky compared with my 40mm Summicron. You have to admire Leitz's M-lens designers.

Philip

[masjah]

Yes, the Leica PC SA 28/2.8 R was made for Leica by Schneider. In fact, this same lens was available from Schneider, under their own name, in Nikon and Canon mounts, needless to say for rather less money! (Though I don't know whether or not Leica specified tighter tolerances.) I've even seen the Schneider badged version with a Leica R mount added.

[Mornnb]

There are benefits to using the TS-E 17mm on the Leica M. The live view focus peaking makes it easier to focus than a Canon body does. Dynamic range and noise in the shadows is better with the Leica M's sensor, as is the resolution and detail it produces without an AA filter. The disadvantage is you need to set it to about f8 or f10 on the Canon body, and you're stuck at that aperture on the Leica.