Lens for Real Estate - Full Frame Nikon

personalt

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
Any recommendations for lens for real estate? I am shooting with a a D600. When I shot DX I had a sigma 10-20mm and that seemed to work well. For the full frame I just have my Rokinon 14mm that I mostly use for astro and then the next thing I have is a 24mm-120mm

I am more of a pro landlord then a pro photographer. I mostly shoot for fun. But I recently bought a two family vacation rental that I am renovating that I want to shoot.

I was thinking maybe , 12-24 F4, 16-35 F4. But without having these lens in my hands I am not even sure there is a need for the other focal length.
 
The only UWA I would recommend is the 14-24; the 16-35 is good, but suffers from serious distortion between 16-19mm and 32-35. Better bet is to use a more "normal" focal length (35-70mm range) and stack/stitch images together. This will render a much more realistic looking final image.
 
I had rented the 14-24mm and loved it.. but that is outside of my budget for now. I had seem some used 12-24mm f4 around $500.. that would be easier to bite off if it would be suitable. I like the idea of stitching I would have 20 rooms to do. Between the blending of flash, ambiant and window pull shots I am not sure I could add stitching to the mix and pull it off. But something I will look in to trying
 
I agree with Tirediron, use either of the wide lenses, if you just want to see it all, and if you want it to look normal go up to about 50mm, camera on tripod, take two or three shots and stitch the shots together.
 
For full frame you'll want to seriously look at the Nikon 14-24 f2.8.
 
Your Rokinon should be pretty OK already. Just use a tripod and stop the lens down. Houses and indoor rooms have the fancy property to not run away, or move in any way, if you photograph them.

A zoom is of course are more flexible solution. Good quality options are, to my best knowledge:
AF-S 14-24mm f2.8 - was a sensation when it came out, and Canon still has nothing on this. Canon has a super expensive 11-24mm f4 now, though.
Tamron 15-35mm f2.8 VC - optically even better than the 14-24, but after distortion corrections the widest angle you actually get from this lens is more like 16mm. Theres a brand new G2 version of this which has been even further improved.
AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR - not worth it really, the lowest end is like 18mm after distortion correction. Good for handheld shots if no tripod is allowed, though.
AF-S 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 - the cheapest option, its about 20mm at the lower end after distortion correction.
 
If' you're on a budget, check out the Tokina 17mm F3.5.
Yes, I have one and it is fine. I shot this picture of a middle school I was working at and just did an auto correct for distortion with LR. I was backed up against a fence and the 17mm was the only lens that would cover the whole school.

Oak tree at FMS by TOM STRAIGHT, on Flickr
 
I agree with Tirediron, use either of the wide lenses, if you just want to see it all, and if you want it to look normal go up to about 50mm, camera on tripod, take two or three shots and stitch the shots together.

dennybeall, please check your PMs
 

Most reactions

Back
Top