What are your favorite lenses for architecture? I know that 35mm is not the ideal film format for architectural photography, but how do Leica M optics perform in this genre? Also, I'm interested in any general advice for shooting structures with a Leica M.

Also, an adjunct to this topic is the subject of the 50 Elmarit 2.8:

I know that wide angle is desirable for this type of photography, but a normal lens I think would be handy as well. I recall reading somewhere that the collapsible 50 Elmarit 2.8 was favored for architecture. I have a 35 Lux ASPH and a thin 90 TeleElmarit already, and a used 50 Elmarit is a very affordable next lens. I also like it's retractable design; reminds me of my old Rollei 35. (I do eventually plan to go wide, but it will be a while before I can afford a 21.) I haven't read too much here on the 50 Elmarit, so what are your feelings about and experiences with this little lens?

Luke Dunlap

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), December 03, 2001

Answers

Check below and you'll find a discussion about this lens and the older version that was discontinued in 1974. I ordered the new one and it arrived today. My only reservation was whether it would be hard to focus without a focusing tab. Although I haven't shot any film yet, I've been playing with with the lens all evening and I can say that focusing is very comfortable and easy. It's a short stroke that can be accomplisged with one finger on the knurled focusing ring. I know this sounds a little geeky, but I like the way it looks and feels. It reminds me a great deal of the Leicas I had twenty years ago. I find that the current 35 and 50 Summicrons, in chrome as I have, are monsters; incredibly heavy. The old Leicas were lightweight and the lenses were mostly short, light and well- balanced. The newer lenses, while remarkable performers, seem to have gotten away from the old Leica concept. So, back on point, the Elmar-M reminds me a lot of the older Leica lenses, but with the benefit of modern glass and design. From what I've read I'm sure it must be pretty sharp. Can't wait to start shooting with it.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), December 03, 2001.

Luke

The 50/2.8 M lens is and has been called "Elmar" not Elmarit. Regardless, the best lenses for architectural photography are wide angles (28/2.8, 28/2.0, 24/2.8, 21/2.8, or 21/3.4 in Leica bayonet mount). The angle of view of the 50 mm, for most architectural applications is just too small. Furthermore, for picking out architectural details, a narrower angle of view (eg., 90 or 135 mm) is better than a 50 mm lens.

I think the Leica/Leitz wide angles are great for architecture. But the very best lenses for architecture are the "perspective control" wide angle lenses (shift lenses or tilt and shift lenses). These lenses (such as the Canon EF 24/3.5-L tilt and shift lens) allow vertical shift, to obviate or reduce the need for angling the lens upward to include the top of a building, which would result in converging verticals. If you are a serious architectural photographer, at some point a tilt-shift lens would be desirable. Of course, these lenses require an SLR for viewing.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 03, 2001.

Luke: I guess it all depends what you want to accomplish when shooting your architecture. If you want accurate renditions of line, shape and form, then your only choice is to keep the camera straight and level in every shot -- and your best lens will be a 65mm - 135mm on a 4x5 with full movements. If you want creative interpretations, and don't mind converging lines, then almost any lens that is on your Leica while you're shooting will work.

Re the 50 Elmar, there were about three posts on this lens last week.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 03, 2001.

Luke, I'm an architect and have done allot of architectural shooting over the years. Although I don't have medium format with perspective- correcting lenses, I do have a Nikon with a 38/2.8 PC lens. I have studied and admired architectural photogrphy for a long time, but these tend to be shot for the trade, ie. architects. They want parallel verticals and everything sharp. That means that you either have a PC lens (Leica makes an R model) or keep the lens level, so that the shooters horizon passes through the focusing rectangle in the middle of the viewfinder. It's very common for architectural photos to have NO people in them (isn't that odd?). This is because they are so obsessed with having the architecture in focus that they are willing to forgo including the actual users of the space. Obviously this is due to the need of a tripod and slow shutter-speeds to increase depth-of-field.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 03, 2001.

Luke, I'm an architect and have done allot of architectural shooting over the years. Although I don't have medium format with perspective- correcting lenses, I do have a Nikon with a 38/2.8 PC lens. I have studied and admired architectural photogrphy for a long time, but these tend to be shot for the trade, ie. architects. They want parallel verticals and everything sharp. That means that you either have a PC lens (Leica makes an R model) or keep the lens level, so that the shooters horizon passes through the focusing rectangle in the middle of the viewfinder. It's very common for architectural photos to have NO people in them (isn't that odd?). This is because they are so obsessed with having the architecture in focus that they are willing to forgo including the actual users of the space. Obviously this is due to the need of a tripod and slow shutter-speeds to increase depth-of-field. The problem with all of this is that everything is very staged. I must admit that I keep my verticals parallel, but the need for sharpness over atmosphere is a style, not a need. Your 50mm lens will be great for details, as will your 90 mm. By shooting details, you avoid the need for parallel verticals because of the odd angles that you can choose. Every once in a while you can find an architectural book with lots of detail shots. I've found that these books often seem to capture the emotional impact of a space more than the staged shot. I find that HCB's work depends a great deal on architecture to frame his subjects in a dynamic composition. The odd angles that he chooses add tension and interest to his human subjects. So enjoy what you've got, and check the book stores and internet for the works of good photographers shooting architecture rather than photographers trying to shoot good buildings.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 03, 2001.

Pat,

Modern design and architecture has been one of my biggest obsessions for the past decade (Leica is the one for the 00s) and I've spent a lot of time studying great architectural photography. Julius Shulman, the Ansel Adams of the built environment, is my favorite. He often included inhabitants of spaces in his photographs.

I think I'm particularly drawn to photographing structures because I'm so actively aware of them all the time. (Should have studied architecture instead of geography.) I see a view camera somewhere in my near future, but I must indulge this M6 obsession for a while.

Luke

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), December 03, 2001.

If you can't afford a PC lens (completely ignoring the fact that Leica doesn't make one for the M), the alternative is to correct the converging verticals digitally. Check out http://www.luminous- landscape.com for an article on the use of Photoshop to adjust this effect after the fact. Not quite the same as a 4x5 view camera, but more useful across a broad range of applications (if you will excuse the pun).

Cheers,

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), December 03, 2001.

I'm not an architect so I'll try not to say anything that Pat could prove is wrong, but I think that as far as an M goes, a 21mm is often the lens used for architecture. A 24 is not bad either but often used more for "reporter" type work with that person "out there", and for landscapes. Of course, you can use any lens for anything special. To get up close, like to view a part of the pillar details on a cathedral, I found that a 75 works great. If I could only have two lenses, the one after the 35 or 50 would be a 21 (my favorite saying still being "An M is a wide-angle camera anyhow").

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), December 04, 2001.

I'm an architect and I agree with Michael that the 21mm lens is the lens for architectural photography as far as the M camera system is concerned. I find the focal length so useful that I bought both the Leica and the Voigtlander versions for the two M-mount bodies I'm using. I've used wide-angle lenses of other focal lengths, such as the 15mm, the 25mm and the 28mm, but I find the 21mm by far the most useful. As for PC lenses, it really is only useful for situations when you want to take pictures of buildings straight on without the effect of converging verticals. If the building is not too tall and there is enough space in front of the building, you can eliminate the converging verticals in your pictures by zooming in from a distance.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 04, 2001.

Re PC: For any buildings, however tall, and with any lens, what I like to do most is "just simply" to get into the building across the street and go up half the height. Unfortunately, of course, I'm not always allowed to do so.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), December 04, 2001.

For correction of converging verticals from non-PC lenses or without camera corrections, one can use Photoshop, much as one previously used a tilting enlarging easel. You can realign verticals to a grid or to any desired angle if you wish.

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), December 04, 2001.

Fred J. Maroon photographed the architecture of Washington D.C. and around the United States. Beautiful pictures of the Capitol. He used an R system but he said the camera lens combination he used most was the M/21mm. Probably one of the reasons I got my 21 Elmarit. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), December 04, 2001.

Wow, Luke, it looks like the 21mm is the ticket. My earlier comments were directed toward making effective use of the lenses you have. I just bought my first M6 and I'm just about done paying off a 28/2.8 Elmarit. I figured that this would be a good compromise lens between the super-wides and a good landscape lens. But the store that I'm buying it from also has a 21mm Super Angulon. I may have to take the advise of your freinds and switch lenses.

By the way; another good arch. photographer is Ezra Stoller. Go to www.esto.com to see his work. He was a pro who shot for all the great architects from the '30s through 90s.

Finally, here's a true story. A Twin Cities arch. photographer named Shin Koyama was once commissioned by Marcel Brauer to shoot the Grand Coulee Dam, which Brauer had just completed. The architect told Shin to show up on a specific day at a specific time and set up his tripod at a specific spot. Shin obliged, flying to N. Dakota or Montana and setting up his tripod at the appointed place and time. As he waited for the exact minute to arrive, a full moon rose over the dam! Now, there's an architect who knew his stuff. Best of luck, Pat

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 04, 2001.

Luke,

I have a PC lens and don't use it.

I use a Hasselblad SWC (23mm equiv in 135 photography) and a 21 1:3.4 SA. I once studied to be an architect, now an engineer. I like photographing ruins found along my travels (Angkor Wat being a no miss, go once in your life experience) and use these along with a 35 1:2. The results are stunning. With a superwide you get context; Prince Charles once said that the newer London buildings were not designed properly to go with the older ones. And with ruins I try to include people too; to show scale. I never use a tele; although, actually needed my 90 once from a church bell tower overlooking a Roman aqueduct in Segovia, Spain (another don't miss); too far away (300-400 meters). I don't necessarily "square" to an piece of architecture. One of my best shots of the Eifel Tower was at dusk UNDER (not directly under, outside the legs) looking up with the 35. One can get interesting shots with an unlevel SWC.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 10, 2002.