What type of lens does everyone use for architecture/building photography.

A

Adg

Messages
56
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

Just a general thread to see what type of lens everyone uses to get photos of buildings, streets, towns, property, architecture etc. I work as a property photographer and use mainly a wide angle Sigma art lens, however I will occasionally take photos of towns, streets, landmarks, rivers and lifestyle type shots to compliment the properties I photograph. I also have use of a Canon 50mm prime lens which I typically use for these type of shots as I find the wide angle to produce quite flat results if that makes sense, however it got me thinking...is the general rule of thumb to use wide angles for architecture photography, do many prefer something different. Most architecture photos appear to be taken on wide angles but I may be wrong.

Of course photos of interiors/rooms would usually always require a wide angle but do exteriors, towns and streets have a particular lens that works best. Personally I like using a prime lens as it produces a good depth of field that really helps certain points of interest stand out. So really just interested to hear what everyone else uses and what array of lenses you typically carry.
 
When I started doing property photos I used a Sigma wide angle on a Canon 7D, but after much saving and soul searching I progressed to a Canon 5DMk2 and a Canon 24mm TS-E Mk2 .
Then I retired , sold up and went Fuji so what little I do now, for personal enjoyment is with a Fuji 10-24mm
 
Ideally you would use a Tilt/shift lens. I did once bid for a canon 24mm tilt shift lens in a secret bid but bid too low and did not get this amazing lens. I use a 12-24mm Sigma lens on my Canon 5D4. For the Sony A6600 which I mainly use now I have used an 18-135m but I might be able to use my Canon 110-22mm on the Sony with my Sigma Canon/Sony adaptor.

Dave
 
Depends on the size of the building, how far away it is from me and whether I want to get it all in the frame. That then dictates the lens I use eg wide angle or a more medium length. Something like a 16-35 is great but can look weird at the wide end, and while you can correct converging verticals in post processing, care needs to be taken.
 
Depends on which camera I'm using among other factors. I like the exaggerated perspective that an ultra wide gives so tend to use a 12-24 on FF and a 10-24 on the Fuji. If I want a lessened perspective (and can get further away - not always an option!), I'll go longer and get as high as possible. If I wanted (or needed) no perspective, I'd get a tilt/shift lens and learn how to use it properly.

As Andy says, correcting verticals in PP needs care - it's very often overdone and looks fake.
 
I find sticking to the 35mm full frame of equivalent doesnt distort the buildings as much and is the closest to what my eye sees, when im feeling adventorous iI use the 16mm equivalent haha
 
24 TSE, sometimes 17 TSE for very tall buildings.
 
Nod said:
Depends on which camera I'm using among other factors. I like the exaggerated perspective that an ultra wide gives so tend to use a 12-24 on FF and a 10-24 on the Fuji. If I want a lessened perspective (and can get further away - not always an option!), I'll go longer and get as high as possible. If I wanted (or needed) no perspective, I'd get a tilt/shift lens and learn how to use it properly.

As Andy says, correcting verticals in PP needs care - it's very often overdone and looks fake.
Click to expand...
Yes I completely agree, correcting verticals can be challenging and can often look strange. I find this especially on taller and narrower buildings as I guess thats not how you would view them through your own eyes.
I find that overdoing this can also make the photo look like a cgi render which is why I prefer using the prime lens as it appears more natural.
I think sometimes not correcting verticals can give a nicer effect sometimes (as long as its not too extreme) even if its not technically correct, for example highlighting sharp angles on a building or looking up at a tall structure.

Yes in an ideal world i feel a tilt shift would be perfect however the cost on these is significant and possibly slight overkill in my companies eyes.
 
Last edited:
I've tried various tilt and shift lenses for 35mm cameras over the years but never found them better than just finding a better viewpoint. Then again, I've never had any pretensions to being an architectural photographer.
 
Has anyone here taken photos of buildings where they just can't get them to all look perfectly straight? I use a Sony a6600 and Sigma 16mm f1.4. Many times I'll take a shot looking up and framing more than one building, or even just standing on the other side of the road and framing two or three buildings next to each other. They usually end up leaning and I try to straighten them with the transform tool in Lightroom. If auto doesn't work I'll use the guided tool where lines are manually positioned. Even if I get one of the buildings straight, the others usually still lean. It puts me off architecture because I get nice shots that I can't straighten perfectly.

Short of a tilt shift lens, should it be possible to get all buildings perfectly straight?
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
Short of a tilt shift lens, should it be possible to get all buildings perfectly straight?
Click to expand...
Yes: Talk your way into a building with a window at the right height that's facing the right way. :naughty:
 
Last edited:
Sometimes you need to retain some element of converging verticals or it looks odd. I am happy for exaggerated converging verticals if I am capturing a skyscraper for example but like cathedrals to look almost non-converging.

Dave
 
It very much depends on what aspect of the building I wish to photograph. Sometimes it's decorative touches that are reasonably high up & I need a telephoto to frame these suitably - indeed sometimes quite a long telephoto to get a viewpoint that's not excessively looking up.
For a view of the building as a whole I'll usually use a moderate wide angle, but sometimes the situation demands wider so on occasions I've even used a fisheye. The local 'electric palace' is one of the first purpose built cinemas in the UK, it's on a narrow street that nearly always has numerous cars parked all along it. When I got the chance to shoot it without cars parked directly outside I used my fisheye zoom (at about 20mm equivalent).
Harwich's cinema by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr The distortion is visible but could be corrected easily enough.
In some interior situations or at night I've ended up using fast normal lenses, but if tripods are allowed an ultra wide is more usual.
 
A bit tongue in cheek.
When you win the Euromillions lottery a Sinar with a digital back.
 
Just occasional snaps and so i don’t have a TS.
Currently, or when I get out a bit more into towns, 14-30 on FF. Try getting back far enough or use a uwa to leave plenty of space around the building to allow perspective controls to work in post.

Also like teles for building details so 70-300 often used on FF. Even up to 800 if ive got my V2+cx70-300.

In short: most FLs

For interiors in good light I actually use a Nikon J5 + 6.7-13 ( 18 -36 efl ) - very compact and discreet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think also part of what can make property photos look flat and boring is that there is limited scope for creativity in order to satisfy the clients, as the listings will need to show a clear representation of the property and rooms with limited photos (unless something quite upmarket . Also as a whole most agents will use very similar photography to their competitors however i at least like to try some photos that set it apart - so really a wide angle is necessary tool for the job. However i think things like interesting converted buildings or modern blocks allow for more ‘exciting angles’ where other lenses could be utilised.
Thats why i like the street/town and the architectural side as you can really try and put some more thought into it and often use a variety of lenses.
 
As a slight deviation to the thread im also trying to add to my portfolio and thought id get some knowledge from those in the know.
Whilst using my employers clients photos is strictly off the cards, it would be nice to show some nice projects, buildings, businesses etc where access is required - initially id be happy to do this for free but it would be good to attract some side projects later on down the line outside of work using my website/portfolio social media. Currently id say my website photos are good but lacking a professional touch and comes across a bit hobbyist/ enthusiast.
Does anyone else have success with this, and if so do you target desired places to photo or advertise to local businesses.
 
If you're using standard ultra-wide angle lenses (ie a tilt-shift isn't affordable), then you do need to shoot wider that the building in order to give space for perspective correction, this is also when it's useful having a high mp sensor to give you more information for cropping.

As an additional thought for making your photography stand-out, have you looked into drone photography?
I know there are limits to what you can do in a city, but if there's a spot across the road from a building, enough so that you could take off, hover, shoot a few shots from higher up and then land safely, perhaps that would give you an alternative image for the clients.
A lot of estate agents selling rural properties are now using drone photography and video footage in their listings to show the size and location of the property.
Using a drone might also get you high enough so as to minimise the perspective correction needed.

Have you thought about shooting from a long way away with a telephoto? Take a look at https://www.instagram.com/londonviewpoints/

Regarding your other question, it sounds like you need to approach a few local building owners and ask permission to shoot them just for your portfolio. Give a bit of information about what you'd like to shoot and do specify that it's not for commercial purposes just for building up your portfolio. I'd try to find 5 properties to shoot, each one being a different style/type: modern commercial, a retail unit, a warehouse, a tower (10 storeys+), something listed, something municipal or structural or transport-related.
One idea might be to find a local architects practice (you might even know an architect) and ask to shoot some of their projects, they get some shots and you get the images for your portfolio. Also if you shoot them before they get handed over to their eventual occupier, it avoids security issues with those companies.
 
Unfortunately being located in built up areas and outer london drones are out of the picture. My company only reserves them for large houses in rural areas which we occasionally cover. For personal use though i would definitely appreciate a drone and have noticed a trend of increasing amount of drone shots- i guess now they are now more affordable and accessible. I have seen some stunning photos of my local area so certainly do need to investigate into these. @ABTog Really appreciate all those tips thank you! I will start scouting some local projects, my local area does not seem to have much to offer in way if interesting architecture so i may need to cast my net further. Office blocks, apartments etc i think would benefit me the most. I think its key to stress to them that its for non profit and towards my portfolio as i think a lot of people assume i will need to be paid.
Does one tend to have luck with approaching building owners this way, or is it a matter of contacting many and hoping that one eventually considers.
 
Just following on from my last post, i have tried to get some voluntary work through local businesses and have posted on local Facebook and business pages aswell as next door app but unfortunately no takers really. Which i am surprised but it may be a weird time for businesses where photography is not priority.
Has anyone else tried this approach? In order to get some experience and shots for my portfolio i may approach ideal businesses directly.

The overall goal here would be to gain some paid architectural photography work (would likely be something i do on the side on top of my full time job) Failing that commercial photography would be a good option (restaurants, offices, hotels) but of course again id need a portfolio in order to get paid commissions.

Im just trying to get the ball rolling in order to build up a body of work. As so far i only have property photography and exterior photos of places ive visited like the Barbican etc that i would use but think i am way off what i would need.
 
Last edited:
My 1928 Zeiss Trona produces beautiful architectural photographs thanks to its built in spirit level and lens shift movements. Trouble is setting up the wooden tripod and spending several minutes under a black cloth does not seem to go down too well with modern traffic. I don't suppose that plates are quite what the client wants these days either.
 
Merlin5 said:
Has anyone here taken photos of buildings where they just can't get them to all look perfectly straight? I use a Sony a6600 and Sigma 16mm f1.4. Many times I'll take a shot looking up and framing more than one building, or even just standing on the other side of the road and framing two or three buildings next to each other. They usually end up leaning and I try to straighten them with the transform tool in Lightroom. If auto doesn't work I'll use the guided tool where lines are manually positioned. Even if I get one of the buildings straight, the others usually still lean. It puts me off architecture because I get nice shots that I can't straighten perfectly.

Short of a tilt shift lens, should it be possible to get all buildings perfectly straight?
Click to expand...

It sounds like maybe what you're describing here is what happens when you tilt a lens (probably upwards) when framing. One way to avoid this is to keep the camera level but of course that wont get you the framing you want.
 
This was taken with a LAOWA C&D-Dreamer MFT 10mm F2.0 manual lens on my Olympus - distortion is very well controlled.


Fishponds Library by Bristol Streets, on Flickr

However, as Alan says, keeping the camera level is important.
 
Going back to the original question, a wide angle is often the only option but with a little imagination you can get a reasonable result even with a Rolleiflex...

Modernist building Swindon Rolleiflex E2_001.jpg
 
There is, of course, reportage photography where architecture is the most important part of the image. That is somewhat different, in my opinion to architectural photography. When it comes to the former, there's no reason why a long focus lens shouldn't be used, if it makes the point. This is through a Leitz Elmar 135mm on a Leica M3...

Pedestrian area City of London imm034.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adg
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top