Real Estate Lens...

[Steve5D]

I've started doing a bit more shooting for a local retirement community here, and my 24-70mm f/2.8L just isn't wide enough.

I'm looking at two options: the 16-35mm f/2.8L and the 17-40mm f/4L.

I don't envision ever doing this shooting without a tripod, so I'm not really concerned about the f/2.8. My thinking is that the 17mm end of the 17-40mm will be wide enough on the 5D, and the lens comes in at half the price of the 16-35mm. For what I'm looking at doing with it, if I went for the 16-35mm, I would be paying twice as much for an extra millimeter.

Which way would you go and why?

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Have you thought about getting a wide angle fisheye? It'll make inside look bigger

 

[Steve5D]

Have you thought about getting a wide angle fisheye? It'll make inside look bigger

Re-reading my post again, I'm can see that I have not.

The two lenses listed are the two I'm considering...

 

[Designer]

Can you mount each lens and snap a few in the store? Just to compare.

 

[DSRay]

I shoot interiors for food and I love my Sigma 10 - 20mm f4-5.6 although I do have my eye on the new Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 because EVERY MM COUNTS.

 

[usayit]

I would place a premium on the optic's ability to keep barrel distortion to a minimum. According to a couple reports I've read, the 16-35mm does a better job at this. The 1mm shorter FL and fast aperture is a bonus.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1

PS> I also liked the 16-35mm for the short time I had it but found myself not really needing it at that time.

I would also consider instead using a normal focal lenght and panning. I've been playing around with a Gigapan lately, its impressive and very easy to use albeit limited in application. You can probably make due with a manual nodal slider/rotation mount on the tripod.

 

[tirediron]

None of the above. I would use this and stitch when required.

 

[DSRay]

I would place a premium on the optic's ability to keep barrel distortion to a minimum. According to a couple reports I've read, the 16-35mm does a better job at this. The 1mm shorter FL and fast aperture is a bonus.

PS> I also liked the 16-35mm for the short time I had it but found myself not really needing it at that time.

I would also consider instead using a normal focal lenght and panning. I've been playing around with a Gigapan lately, its impressive and very easy to use albeit limited in application. You can probably make due with a manual nodal slider/rotation mount on the tripod.

You will get distortion from whatever lens you use. Familiarity with the lens will give you a very good idea of what to expect from any given shot and IMHO the premium paid is not worth it when you consider the time required to adjust a second slider in Photoshop's lens correction filter. Even worse distortion, inconsistent distortion, typically results from cobbling a panning shot together.

 

[ronlane]

I would go with the 17-40mm f/4L. It's half the price and that 1mm and the f/2.8 isn't going to make enough difference for me to justify spending twice the money.

Scott Kelby had Rick Sammon on one of his shows in January and this is the lens that he uses for a lot of his travel landscape photos.

I rented it for 3 days after that and was happy with the photos that I got out of it. I wasn't able to get out and shoot landscape with it but I did shoot my son's b-day party with it indoors.

 

[DSRay]

None of the above. I would use this and stitch when required.

Lordy, I could buy 5 view cameras and a lens for that money. If I need tilts and shifts, I'll use my Calumet 4x5 bought used for $150.

 

[DaninMD]

I have the 17-40 and love that lens. very sharp, even at f/4. really shines at f6-9. for what you are doing I would suggest that. its half the price and not sure why you would need a faster lens if you are shooting on a tripod. you can get a good deal on used 17-40. if you look at the real world image comparisons of the two lenses there really isn't much of a difference. when the 16-35 came out I was going to get it but really didn't see any improvement to warrant spending twice as much. even if is ever so slightly softer, will it really matter for what you are doing with it? you aren't talking about creating large format prints, this is mostly just going to be for internet listings, etc, right? sigma and tamron also have options for a little less I believe.

 

[tirediron]

None of the above. I would use this and stitch when required.

Lordy, I could buy 5 view cameras and a lens for that money. If I need tilts and shifts, I'll use my Calumet 4x5 bought used for $150.

That would work too, but a little more of a pain in the but to lug around.

 

[Gavjenks]

None of the above. I would use this and stitch when required.

Yes, if you're doing many exterior shots, especially, a TS lens would be more versatile and powerful. Fixes perspective the way you want it AND stitches for panoramas of grounds AND lets you get greater DOF in low light AND selective focus if desired, etc.. And if, like a lot of real estate photography, it may mainly be viewed online, then you can crop safely from the middle (since you'd crop anyway for internet resolution) and effectively make it a zoom to longer FLs as well, not having to switch lenses as often or carry as much stuff. I think that is a great suggestion.

If you're shooting for printing, though, not online, and/or if you only do interior shots, then less so.

And there's a Mark I version:
Amazon.com: Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L Tilt Shift Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics
Used $900, barely even costs more than the 17-40.

Or if Steve is making any significant money from this work, then it may even be worth the 17mm TS-E, but it is more expensive than the more expensive of the two lenses in the OP, so maybe not. Just throwing it out there though. $2300 new, $2000 used. If the convenience, shorter processing time of not stitching, or higher quality shots from better perspective and tilt abilities could = $1000 saved or made, then it's worth it.


All of these lenses also have great value holding, so you can buy used, and see if you get more real estate gigs, and then if not, just sell off again, and either you do a lot of it and make up the cost, or your whole cost ends up being $100 in ebay fees or whatever.

 

[usayit]

Have you thought about getting a wide angle fisheye? It'll make inside look bigger

Re-reading my post again, I'm can see that I have not.

The two lenses listed are the two I'm considering...

Wait... does this mean that the 17-40 or the 16-35 are the only two lenses that are options??? That's how I read it... if so... there are posts that wouldn't be much help.

 

[Steve5D]

this is mostly just going to be for internet listings, etc, right? sigma and tamron also have options for a little less I believe.

Yes, this is for the community's website, and for their parent company website. They're paying me rather well, and they've been very happy with what I've provided up to now. I just want to up the game a tad...