CF416
Posts: 6
Location:
Registered: 25 Jun 2008
|
Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 8 Jul 2008 at 17:07 GMT
|
|
|
I am looking to photography both residential real estate panos and still shots. I use Canon and was wondering if anyone might suggest a good lens to campture stills. Has anyone had good experiences working with something between 20 & 24mm?
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 711
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 8 Jul 2008 at 17:25 GMT
|
|
CF416
The best lens I've found for my Real Estate Still Photos is the Canon 10-22mm
I shoot almost every scene at 10mm
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Steven Scott
Posts: 38
Location: Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, United States
Registered: 13 Mar 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 8 Jul 2008 at 19:18 GMT
|
|
I concur with Doug.
I just applied for a RE photo contract job with a mainland U.S. company -- they require an SLR with a lens of 16mm or less. They HIGHLY suggest the Canon 10-22mm lens for Canon users.
Been practicing with the Canon 10-22mm and it's pretty nice! All at 10mm, like Doug!
I hope I get the job !
Best of luck,
steve
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
marcus newey
Posts: 127
Location: somerset, United Kingdom
Registered: 23 Oct 2005
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 9 Jul 2008 at 21:53 GMT
|
|
As you are asking about 20-24mm I'm guessing you're shooting FF canon?
If so the 10-22 is ef-s so no use to you.
Even on FF 20-24 is not really wide enough for most RE work.
Many are happy with the 17-40, there's also the 16-35 [eitherway you'll need PTLens or DxO]
If you want wider I think there's a good 14mm canon prime, and sigma do a 12-24 super wide for FF [tokina as well I think]
I shoot nikonDX with the sigma 10-20, mostly at 10-12mm
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
michael medina
Posts: 266
Location: portland, oregon, United States
Registered: 27 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 9 Jul 2008 at 23:25 GMT
updated: 9 Jul 2008 at 23:28 GMT
|
|
i often shot with my 10.5 fish and defishd it
then i cropped it so it didn't look too wide. all batch processed, never had to change the lens. even cropped it still comes out to 3-5 megapixel equivalent. more than adequate for web and flyers and the pay 
actually i did shoot an apartment last week for some friends who live out of town so they could see it without spending $20 in gas. things look a little wonky because of the angles, but i wasn't getting paid so no need to correct the perspective. no bracketing either.
pdxvr.com/other/65th
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 711
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 9 Jul 2008 at 23:57 GMT
|
|
Michael
Using the Nikkor 10.5mm and constantly defishing the images wouldn't be practical for an ongoing business shooting stills for Realtors.
Images taken with the Canon 10-22mm are already "defished."
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
michael medina
Posts: 266
Location: portland, oregon, United States
Registered: 27 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 at 4:41 GMT
|
|
if you shoot raw (and i always do) and convert from raw to tiff or jpg (which everyone has to do anyway), it can be set to defish automagically during the conversion.
if you ever find yourself using ptlens or something like that to fix the distortion on your zoom or the perspective, it can be done at the same time
both of those things prove it is a viable solution. especially for the pay
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 711
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 at 14:12 GMT
updated: 10 Jul 2008 at 14:13 GMT
|
|
Michael
I shoot 5 to 10 homes a week and shooting RAW, then converting simpley takes too much time, too much camera memory and too much harddrive space for what the Realtors in my area are willing to pay.
I shoot in the best quality JPEG setting my Canon XTi has, then compositing in Photomatix, tuning & resizing in Photoshop and uploading into the MLS takes enough time, memory and space as it is.
Using a fisheye lens, then defishing for still photos, is like using a Corvette to move furniture, it can be done, but a Chevy pickup would work a lot better?????
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
michael medina
Posts: 266
Location: portland, oregon, United States
Registered: 27 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 at 18:02 GMT
|
|
whatever works for you.
raw and jpg take up similar space here and raw gives one a lot more latitude. i batch process things and go eat lunch or something while it happens.
the biggest bottleneck in your process is using photoshop, if you want to speed things up use lightroom and you will see an increase in productivity on the order of 4 or 5. what takes an hour in photoshop takes only 15min or less in lightroom. then it won't matter which lens you use. when i shoot realty, i typically come home and have the stills done in about 20 minutes, defished, fused, and post processed. resizing is basically irrelevant in lightroom.
the slowest part of the process is getting the images off the card. if you batch process right off the card, then importing time is also used to process the images out of raw and you won't know that anything happened other than pulling images off the card.
using a fisheye is ideal for real estate:
1) it always more than wide enough
2) it's in my bag and on the camera
3) you can shoot your vr's with it
4) don't have to buy a new lens
5) images come out rectilinear, no barrel, pincushion, or mustache distortion
i guess your corvette comparison could make sense but i don't see shooting real estate as moving furniture, i see it more like giving someone who already owns 15 corvettes another corvette and getting paid for a 1982 chevy pickup.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 711
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 at 19:53 GMT
updated: 10 Jul 2008 at 19:54 GMT
|
|
Michael
One major advantage of a wide angle lens like the 10-22mm compared to using any fisheye lens for still photos and defishing them is that the image that the photographer sees in the view finder, will be pretty much the image they'll get. The de-fishing process will crop out parts of the photos that will be hard to estimate while taking the photos
I think that if some one is going into the furniture moving business, they need to have a pickup not a Corvette.
Thats why I use my 10-22mm for stills and a fisheye for my virtual photography.
By your logic, I don't need a telephoto lens to shoot things that are far away because I can crop the part of the photo I want out of the fisheye shot?????
If you're going to be a professional photographer, using the right lens for each situation is just "professional."
That's why the lenses come off isn't it?
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
michael medina
Posts: 266
Location: portland, oregon, United States
Registered: 27 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 at 20:16 GMT
|
|
as i said,
whatever works for you
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 711
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 at 23:51 GMT
|
|
And if some one is going into the furniture moving business and wants to race sports cars, they should have both the Corvette and a Chevy pickup
Thats a metaphor for owning BOTH lenses 
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
michael medina
Posts: 266
Location: portland, oregon, United States
Registered: 27 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 11 Jul 2008 at 4:23 GMT
|
|
|
let it go
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
marcus newey
Posts: 127
Location: somerset, United Kingdom
Registered: 23 Oct 2005
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 11 Jul 2008 at 9:58 GMT
|
|
ok, I really don't want to perpetuate this 10.5 vs rectilinear superwide, but...
For 'most' RE shots, you could probably get away with just using the 10.5, defishing, then croping to suit.
The main drawbacks being that it's a lot easier to frame when WYSIWYG when looking through the viewfinder and the quality suffers at the edges.
OK for the web, but most of my clients print brochures and get 'editorial' coverage in glossy property mags, I would worry about the quality of a defished image used full page, especially on a cover.
It's also way way too wide for most external shots.
Anyhow, I've posted a comparison between the de-fished 10.5 and the sigma @10mm <a href="www.flickr.com/photos/56677800@N00/sets/72157603962467232/">here</a>
Micheal, how are you de-fishing as part of your LR workflow? or are you putting them through NX first [if so you're cooking the RAW before going to lightroom right?]
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
michael medina
Posts: 266
Location: portland, oregon, United States
Registered: 27 Jan 2008
|
Re: Lens for Still Shots
Posted: 11 Jul 2008 at 22:13 GMT
|
|
that's an interesting set of images and imo shows that they are pretty close at the red line, not the far edge, but where the crop would be. in most cases based on your comparison the 10.5 should be fine.
i only offered the 10.5 as an option if someone already owns it. 99.9% of real estate image are crap (pardon my french ) and will only ever be shown at 800px wide or printed at 4"x6" on typing paper. 3mp prints fine at 8"x10" (magazine cover) and the center of a defished image is more than 3mp even on my 6mp d70.
the 10.5 is a viable option and i don't know why doug insists on being right.
actually now that i think about it, i did print a defished image at 12x18 once just to see and the center area (comparable to the 3mp area) was fine, the edges were crap too for sure.
if your images are being printed at that quality then i would invest in a wide zoom if the printed quality wasn't up to snuff, but that would have to be up to the photographer's taste.
you don't have to cook your raws in nx, it outputs nef but i do anyway as most of the real estate images don't require (deserve) that much work
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Prev
