Is 16-35f2.8L good for my real estate photos? Inside homes and landscape

[RealtorRichie]

6D

[cicopo]

That depends on the level of work you want to do. Some would recommend even wider for the indoor stuff, myself included. Low end would be the Sigma 12-24 or high end this new Canon lens. There are samples here

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1356236

[ebiggs1]

9 out of 10 times the 16-35mm will do what you want. 16mm is pretty wide on a 6D.  If you find yourself needing ultra wide, Canon has a 8-15mm L lens that lets you take a photo of your feet while holding the camera at eye level and looking straight out!

This is 15mm inside the CSO Performing Arts Center.

[TCampbell]

The issue with the 8-15mm (and you can clearly see it in ebigg's example) is that this is a "curvilinear" wide-angle lens.  Most wide-angles are "rectilinear".  

Rectilinear means that "straight" lines in the subject are maintained as "straight" in the image.   In a "curvilinear" (aka "fish-eye" distortion) you get the bubble-shaped distortion where "straight" lens are curved.  

Canon has announced an EF 11-24mm f/4L which is an ultra-wide angle rectilinear wide-angle (not fish-eye).  I think the lens is available for pre-orders via Canon dealers, but I don't think it's shipping yet. 

[ebiggs1]

Tim particaly true.  Straight radial lines can remain straight in an image.  The direct lines which are running along the main optical axes are displayed as straight lines other lines are curved.

In my sample, it does show a reasonable reprensentation of the auditorium as it is a "curved" space.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Tim particaly true.  Straight radial lines can remain straight in an image.  The direct lines which are running along the main optical axes are displayed as straight lines other lines are curved.

In my sample, it does show a reasonable reprensentation of the auditorium as it is a "curved" space.

---

But surely the lean of the door at the left front of the stage is due to perspective distortion, not to the curvature of the auditorium?

[ebiggs1]

"direct lines which are running along the main optical axes ..."

That does not run through the center of the lens, so yes, it will look distorted (actually curved).

[ebiggs1]

This picture was taken using the same lens.  The World War 1 Memorial in Kansas City, Mo.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

This picture was taken using the same lens.  The World War 1 Memorial in Kansas City, Mo.

 [Picture omitted]

---

It's always nice to find such a photogenic cloud formation. Here's our City Hall with pretty good clouds. The vantage point has to be the roof of the building across the street, so one doesn't always have the opportunity to keep going back if the sky is boring. 

BTW, the lens in this case was the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on a 50D.

[ScottyP]

It depends on your budget, because for real estate shots you can get by without a 2.8 aperture.  Low light is not a problem because you can set up a longer exposure, and it seems like you would not want a shallow DOF like f/2.8 anyway, right? 

You could do fine with an f/4 lens on a tripod.  

1.)  No subject blur.  You don't need a fast shutter speed since real estate shots are of motionless structures, not of living moving things.  

2.)  No hand shake blur.  You don't need a fast shutter speed because you don't have to hand hold the camera, because you have time to set up a shot on a tripod, as there is no way to "miss the magic moment" in a shot of someone's kitchen or bathroom or curb appeal.  

Heck, you could shoot at f/8 or f/11 or f/16 if you wanted the depth of field.  As long as you put the camera on a tripod, you can set a 30 second exposure or a 2 minute exposure if you really wanted to.