Lens for Real Estate Photos

[mikec]

At the end of the day its real estate, the photos will go on the web or a few brochures and then never used again, it doesn't need to be 100% perfect.

If on the other hand you were doing actual architectural photography for a magazine, book or architect then you'd have to be worried about correcting perspective etc.. and a TSE would then become mandatory.

The tog we use at work only really uses his 17mm TSE, he uses a telephoto every now and then to flatten perspective or pick out key details but I'd say 90% of his work is with the TSE looking at all the EXIF info of the proofs he sends.

[Slide]

*Rant*
As a renter looking at rentals I'm getting sick of Real Estate agents making crappy small places look huge by sqeezing them selves into the very corner of a room and using a UWA.
*End Rant*

[Allann]

Having just done a shoot of a unit for LJ Hooker, I used a 5DII with 16-35/2.8 and found it very easy to shoot with minimal distortion only having to correct one image. The main thing they are after is bright/warm images but distortion is a factor. I found that in a small room it is zooming to 24mm+ and taking a couple for a stitch was much better than taking a really wide shot and fixing the distortion. The hardest part is getting the lighting right though and spending a little time (I possible) to setup a couple of remote light sources makes for a lot less processing afterwards.

[JM Tran]

What?

The 14mm is going to give you a lot more distortion than the 16mm.

ummm, do u know about barrel distortion and rectilinear aspects of wide angle lenses?

try shooting a room at 14mm using the prime, then at 16mm with the 16-35 zoom

look at this sample review of the 16-35,at 16mm

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff..._28_5d?start=1

a zoom lens will always suffer from a lot more barrel distortion than a prime, especially at ultra wide focal lengths.

makes me wonder why serious architectural and real estate shooters prefer primes for this sort of work.....

[JM Tran]

dont really care about vignetting, it is easily solved in the processing and editing, and not a particular concern for any serious real estate shooters, whereas distortion is - and this is what we are talking about here.

Vignetting and light fall-off can be fixed by stopping down the lens, using external light sources such as contstant light and strobes to light the corners, and in photoshop.

Barrel distortion is a concern, as one may need to submit photos on site to client without any further post processing - so the chance to correct it is nil, and client will not be happy if things are warped. Correcting it may also lead to cropping of corners when straightening the image out.

Professionals tend not to fix it by using the correct lenses, thus no need for extra work/cropping/time wasting etc.

[gje38752]

Hi, I use a Cannon 15=85 and find that at wide angle the results are excellent given that its a zoom on a 450D. RE Agents love it.

[Clubmanmc]

grabs micro wave popcorn and sits back...

M

[mikec]

grabs micro wave popcorn and sits back...

M

+ 1

[jeffde]

Did a bit of real estate out here in orange and surrounds and you'll need more than one 580Ex to light a room. I have a 430Ex as well but up to 3 flashes needed for large rooms. I use a 10-20 sigma lens and its more than adequate.

[JM Tran]

That's not a prudent comment, JM.

As a pro, shooting RAW for post is almost a necessity in workflow. Even if the slightest touch-up is done on-site, alterations should be done.

The 14mm is good, but does not produce perfect photos. It's also a fact that many RE photogs nowadays shoot pans/bracketed frames. Combining these requires at least some PP time, whether RAW or JPG.

Distortion correction should always be a priority for RE photography.

yup, but the 14mm MKII produces sharper corner to corner sharpness and more rectilinear than a 16-35 MKII will ever be able to. Both unedited and corrected later.

pretty sure quick shots of small jpegs required for listings of houses from LJ Hooker, Ray White, Elders do not need extensive PP nor do they have the time and personnel resources to fart around with PPing every single shot.

And if u want to talk about more serious, higher end clients such as Sir Norman Foster's works and five figure clients, Im pretty sure those photographers dont use a 16-35 at all. They use the 14mm, 17TSE and 24TSE for a reason, and its a bloody good reason. So whats the point of trying to justify about the 16-35? Yeah it can do the job, same as any other wide lens, but good enough? No. Its like me trying to justify using an 18-55 kit lens for wedding work, sure I can use it and produce good photos, but good enough as I should be? Definitely not.