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

[RealtorRichie]

6D

[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.  

[ebiggs1]

Is that Boston?  Bob from Boston?

"It's always nice to find such a photogenic cloud formation."

There is always Photoshop.  And I will never tell?  Did he or didn't he? 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Is that Boston?  Bob from Boston?

Cambridge. Home of Harvard and MIT. Right across the river from Boston. I work for the City of Cambridge as a computer system administrator and sometime photographer.

The City Hall was a gift from a rich Californian, Frederick H. Rindge, who had grown up in Cambridge. Built in 1892, it has been beautifully maintained and is a prized landmark. (Boston's City Hall, built in - and with the architecture of - the 1960s, has come to be regarded as one of the ugliest public buildings in the Western Hemisphere.)

"It's always nice to find such a photogenic cloud formation."

There is always Photoshop.  And I will never tell?  Did he or didn't he? 

Nonsense. I might be persuaded to believe that you used a gradient ND filter on that picture, but I don't think you Photoshopped in those clouds. They look genuine to me. 

---

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

OK, I have never been to Boston or even Massachusetts (sp).  New York is as as far east I have been and that was for work.

"Nonsense."

All I can say, Bob from Boston, is don't bet your life on it.  

Not giving up any indications on that photo in any manner or form but I routinly take snaps of clouds when I spy some beautiful formations.  If a person wanted to, again not saying one way or the other, it is best to replace the enitre sky.  Not simply add clouds.

"And I will never tell?  Did he or didn't he?"