Does this sound like a good plan? - With sample pics

[Parker219]

Since I am a Realtor, I take the pictures for all my teams listings for houses less than 200k. For all houses 200k plus we higher a professional. I am currently using a Nikon p510, which is more known for the zoom, but has a small sensor.

I dont want to replace the pro, but I would like to take better pics even for the lower priced houses than what I am currently taking.

I want to take pictures LIKE the pro or as close to his quality as I can.

So this is the plan. Buy the D7100 body only for $1,200.

Then buy this lens for $550 wide angle shots which are needed for Real Estate- Also I figure it will be a good lens to walk around with - Amazon.com: Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor Wide-Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo

Then buy this lens for $430, because I want to zoom in on a bugs behind if I want - Amazon.com: Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo - Nothing really do do with real estate, more for personal use.

So my question is, does this sound like a good plan? Pretend you were me, and had between $2,000-$3,000 to spend on a camera/lens. Is this what you would get ( sticking with Nikon )?


Since I want wide angle, should I consider another brand lens that is 10 or 12mm that would be even wider than the lens I mentioned which is 16mm?


In case you are curious to see what the professionals photos look like, and so you can get an idea of what I want my photos to look like, here is the link - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8tp18nzfj8t8my2/WnlcNGAZmc#/

The photo that impresses me the the most, is the 3rd photo on the top line. You get a nice wide angle, plus the pool can still be seen, even through the bright window. I wonder what his set up is.


Any responses will be greatly appreciated!

 

[desmondlewissmith]

Your plan seems to be a good one, I have but one question. Will you ever need faster lenses. My wife is a Realtor as well and I shoot all of her photos with a 17-35mm, but I only buy 2.8 glass as I shoot a variety of other subjects and shoot in low light often.

If there is no need for low light or faster lenses then you should be fine, you could actually do it with a point and shoot.

 

[SCraig]

... The photo that impresses me the the most, is the 3rd photo on the top line. You get a nice wide angle, plus the pool can still be seen, even through the bright window. I wonder what his set up is.

Well, the short version is: That's part of why he is the pro. He knows how to get the shots others only wonder about.

 

[Parker219]

Your plan seems to be a good one, I have but one question. Will you ever need faster lenses. My wife is a Realtor as well and I shoot all of her photos with a 17-35mm, but I only buy 2.8 glass as I shoot a variety of other subjects and shoot in low light often.

If there is no need for low light or faster lenses then you should be fine, you could actually do it with a point and shoot.

Hmmm, I dont think I will need faster, it looks like your lens is this one for $1,000 right? Amazon.com: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo

So I guess I could wait on the macro and just get the d7100 body and this lens for $2,200. I dont know though. I want to see what my other options are.

 

[desmondlewissmith]

Take my opinion for what it's worth, but I hate back pedaling.

You won't outgrow the lens and if you do, fast glass maintains a reasonable value over time. I've never used a lens and thought "I'm angry that I have too many options", BUT I've used slow 3.5 lenses several times and though; "I wish this was a faster lens."

Your plan seems to be a good one, I have but one question. Will you ever need faster lenses. My wife is a Realtor as well and I shoot all of her photos with a 17-35mm, but I only buy 2.8 glass as I shoot a variety of other subjects and shoot in low light often.

If there is no need for low light or faster lenses then you should be fine, you could actually do it with a point and shoot.

Hmmm, I dont think I will need faster, it looks like your lens is this one for $1,000 right? Amazon.com: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo

So I guess I could wait on the macro and just get the d7100 body and this lens for $2,200. I dont know though. I want to see what my other options are.

 

[cgipson1]

That would probably do you. Most "house" shooting in or out will be on the wide end of the range, so you will have access to to that 3.5 aperture when needed. 2.8 lenses would preferred, but not really necessary. A good FX lens would be a better choice IMO (like the 17-35 mentioned), as the D7100 will use the center of it (Better IQ), and you can upgrade to FX later if you want to.

The D7100 is an excellent body, and will do anything you want or need!

The 85mm is a good lens... I used one for a while. Sharp, and good IQ. But again... an FX lens (while a little more expensive) would allow better IQ and upgrading. The Tokina 100 is great, better than the 85mm IMO.. and not much more.

 

[Parker219]

^- Desmond- Did you get a chance to look at the link of the prefessionals photos? If so, if you had to guess do you think that is a 17mm wide angle? Or do you think he is wider? The third pic on the top row looks like one of the widest. Are your pics on par, not as good, or better than this guys pics?

 

[cgipson1]

^- Desmond- Did you get a chance to look at the link of the prefessionals photos? If so, if you had to guess do you think that is a 17mm wide angle? Or do you think he is wider? The third pic on the top row looks like one of the widest. Are your pics on par, not as good, or better than this guys pics?

Parker > nikon 17-35 - Flickr: Search

 

[Parker219]

That would probably do you. Most "house" shooting in or out will be on the wide end of the range, so you will have access to to that 3.5 aperture when needed. 2.8 lenses would preferred, but not really necessary. A good FX lens would be a better choice IMO (like the 17-35 mentioned), as the D7100 will use the center of it (Better IQ), and you can upgrade to FX later if you want to.

The D7100 is an excellent body, and will do anything you want or need!

The 85mm is a good lens... I used one for a while. Sharp, and good IQ. But again... an FX lens (while a little more expensive) would allow better IQ and upgrading. The Tokina 100 is great, better than the 85mm IMO.. and not much more.

This is the type of feedback I need. So do you have any links to the lens you are referring to? I was naive enough to this since the d7100 is a DX camera, I had to get DX glass. So, if I can get fx glass, I might go with ..... Amazon.com: Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Electronics

Then get a prime walking around lens and scratch the macro for now?

 

[desmondlewissmith]

^^^^^^ What he said ^^^^^^

My house pics are on the same level or better depending on the house...

 

[Parker219]

ok cool thanks.

I gotta research it some more it seems.

 

[desmondlewissmith]

• A FX lens is deigned to properly project an image onto an FX sensor - say 36mm x 24 mm nominal
• A DX lens is designed to properly project an image onto a DX sensor say 18mm x 24 mm or half the area of an FX sensor.

A DX lens mounted on an FX body will usually not fully illuminate an FX sensor (usually it will at least vignette in the corners. But even if it does apparently fully illuminate the larger sensor it will not have been designed to perform well over such a wide area and the results at the edges can be expected to be bad.
If you use an FX lens on a DX body the middle half of the AREA of the lens will be used. This tends to have better performance (superior MTF etc) so use of an FX lens with a DX sensor usually improves sharpness and contrast. However, there are sometimes reports of a given FX lens working worse with DX sensors.

So if you buy a DX lense then move to an FX camera later, you need new lenses. If you buy FX lenses and upgrade to an FX camera you are fine.

 

[Parker219]

ok cool, that helps.

Wow, these wide angles can get pricey! Amazon.com: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens: NIKON: Electronics

I dont know, if I go 14mm, I am sure I will have some major distortion. So I need to make sure I am good at fixing that is PS as well.

 

[cgipson1]

That would probably do you. Most "house" shooting in or out will be on the wide end of the range, so you will have access to to that 3.5 aperture when needed. 2.8 lenses would preferred, but not really necessary. A good FX lens would be a better choice IMO (like the 17-35 mentioned), as the D7100 will use the center of it (Better IQ), and you can upgrade to FX later if you want to.

The D7100 is an excellent body, and will do anything you want or need!

The 85mm is a good lens... I used one for a while. Sharp, and good IQ. But again... an FX lens (while a little more expensive) would allow better IQ and upgrading. The Tokina 100 is great, better than the 85mm IMO.. and not much more.

This is the type of feedback I need. So do you have any links to the lens you are referring to? I was naive enough to this since the d7100 is a DX camera, I had to get DX glass. So, if I can get fx glass, I might go with ..... Amazon.com: Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Electronics

Then get a prime walking around lens and scratch the macro for now?

10-24 is a nice lens... but still DX. I had one.. loved it, but sold it when I upgraded to FX.

 

[Parker219]

So what are you using for wide angle now? The 14-24 2.8 in your sig? You have a link on amazon to that? I cant seem to find it.

I might upgrade to FX, so from what you guys are saying, I should get FX glass now.