Why would a 120 SA need a CF when a 125 F-W doesn't? Do you have examples of "stretched edges" of the SA vs. the less distorted F-W?
Why would a 120 SA need a CF when a 125 F-W doesn't? Do you have examples of "stretched edges" of the SA vs. the less distorted F-W?
The Architect has been dead for 800 years.
I use heavy lenses, I know what a heavy lens is, none of my Super Angulons are heavy. There's minimal difference in weight between the 72XL and the 90 5.6.
The physics of the optics, for non retrofocus designs, mean that a centre filter may be necessary for the picture you might want to make; I'd prefer to make the picture than have to move on to a different one, determined by a desire to use a particular lens. Super Angulons are rectilinear lenses, distortion is no more than 0.5%, according to both Schneider's published data, and my own observations.
Are you referring to the apparently stretched projection of objects at the edge of the frame when you talk about distortion? That isn't distortion, that's perspective projection-
Here's another from the same day, from a 1929 120mm Zeiss Tessar, that doesn't cover the movements. Just to show my taste in lenses is catholic.
No question, it is an excellent photo. Sometimes you clearly need the width although when I look at it cropped to approximately what a 90mm would give it's a keeper too. In fact one could argue that the relative increase in size of the distant areas would be beneficial. It's not like Frederick Evans wasn't able to describe a cathedral's space with his more limited range of lenses back in the day.Originally Posted by jb7
It's disingenuous to suggest that anything photographed at less than the magic 90 number is going to show 'distortion'. The lens does no more than project an image, and if the photographer chooses to put identifiable forms on the edge of a 120º image circle, then they will be stretched, and will be met with distaste by the non-skateboarders among us.
The photographer may choose to project a different image, that doesn't draw attention to the extreme corners.
This is the last image from the 72mm that I posted on this forum, uncommented on in the 'Post your Churches' thread. Is that because you were all sickened by the distortion? Since I got the 72mm, I hardly ever take the 90mm out, and it's a 5.6, pre XL version, with a similar image circle.
Lenses are just tools, to say that they will inherently 'distort' is misleading. Photographers distort.
Were you able to keep it all straight in-camera or is there some post work to fix the perspective and vignetting?
Not picking a fight, I wouldn't kick a free 72XL out of bed!
No question, it is an excellent photo. Sometimes you clearly need the width although when I look at it cropped to approximately what a 90mm would give it's a keeper too. In fact one could argue that the relative increase in size of the distant areas would be beneficial. It's not like Frederick Evans wasn't able to describe a cathedral's space with his more limited range of lenses back in the day.It's disingenuous to suggest that anything photographed at less than the magic 90 number is going to show 'distortion'. The lens does no more than project an image, and if the photographer chooses to put identifiable forms on the edge of a 120º image circle, then they will be stretched, and will be met with distaste by the non-skateboarders among us.
The photographer may choose to project a different image, that doesn't draw attention to the extreme corners.
This is the last image from the 72mm that I posted on this forum, uncommented on in the 'Post your Churches' thread. Is that because you were all sickened by the distortion? Since I got the 72mm, I hardly ever take the 90mm out, and it's a 5.6, pre XL version, with a similar image circle.
Lenses are just tools, to say that they will inherently 'distort' is misleading. Photographers distort.
Were you able to keep it all straight in-camera or is there some post work to fix the perspective and vignetting?
Not picking a fight, I wouldn't kick a free 72XL out of bed. Or even a 75/8!
That's fairly simple subject because you're mainly using rise. If you took a vantage point from a balcony and had to use compound movements there would be quite a few stretch
marks, which is in fact a form of distortion, and quite obnoxious when dealing with intersecting vertical and horizontal lines (again something less obvious in Gothic - and, of
course, I was making a wisecrack about the architect - but if he were alive, he might not
like stretching either). Otherwise, when not confined by interior space, simply shoot something analogous from a distance using a long focal length lens versus chose-up wide
angel and note the difference.
Yeah but did his 75/5.6 Schneider pre-XL Super-Anglon have the image circle? Purely a camera geekery question.
What stops a professional from choosing to shoot interesting buildings on his/her own? Most pros shoot for themselves constantly, as its necessary to keep the portfolio fresh and good marketing to boot. The big difference is that we get to go inside the building and shoot all the stuff that amateurs will never have access to without a client, assignment or insurance coverage. Building exteriors are only one part of architectural photography.
As to the lenses there's nothing magic about a 24 TSE either. You need lots of different lenses to produce quality work. I work with everything from a 17 to 200.
I went back and checked, yes, that's as it came out of the camera, no cropping or geometric transformations. I think I'd prefer it a little wider myself- some more space below the railing, it's just too tight. However, moving back would have required steps, to keep the altar in the background separate from the railing.
And to answer your enquiry in a subsequent post, the 90 5.6 SA has a 235mm image circle, bigger than the 72.
Drew, you seem to be going out of your way to invent scenarios to back up your descriptions of 'obnoxious' and your use of the word 'distortion'.
As I said earlier, control of these effects is in the hands of the photographer, and it would be perverse to use the techniques you describe, if it were to produce bad pictures, unless your motive was to illustrate the effects you find so distasteful.
Simple is good, and using rise on an XL is just playing to its strengths.
I've made my point, don't see any benefit in flogging this one any more, so I'll leave it at that...
If I was putting togther a portfolio to represent myself as an architectural photographer it
would be a very different thing from a portfolio of personal artwork. Someone might hire
me in the first place due to that latter aspect (which was generally the case back when I
did this sort of thing) - but they'd expect THEIR work to be represented professionally,
without a bunch of oddly converging or bending lines, so I'd keep a portfolio of that kind of thing around too. It's probably even more important today ... if you can't even control
perspective issues, might as well just have their niece with the hundred buck digital camera do the whole shoot.
It's not to be argumentative. Sometimes the nature of the job dictates the camera position. It's not like picking and choosing for what will make the "best" possible shot.
The client tells you what to show or include, and it can be less than ideal with respect to lens performance. Whole different ballgame. You might be able to make the verticals converge but then have to sacrifice something else. The big coverage lenses are wonderful
for doing this kind of thing, but something gives. But back in the day when I did this kind
of thing, I sure couldn't complain if a single shot paid for the whole damn new lens and the
center filter too. The rest was gravy. So I'm not talking hypothetical anything. A commercial portfolio would be one thing, a personal portfolio something different.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks