Real Estate Lens? (EF 16-35mm f/2.8L)

[Lorem]

I'm looking to get a lens to do some real estate photography (ASAP for a project this coming Monday). This is the one i'm currently looking at. I am aware of distorsion from such a wide angle lens and ready to do some barrel/pinch correction with photoshop CS2.

Looking to shoot... interiors / medium to small rooms (low lighting)

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=239648&is=USA

Thoughts? Ideas?

Thanks a mil

Lam

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/239648.jpg

[Dchemist]

Hi Lorem,

Did you consider the 17-40 F/4? I have this and it is an excellent lens at a somewhat more attractive price. If you are doing interiors you will likely have a tripod so the low light issue would be minimized. Good luck, Dennis

[Sir Tony]

If you are shooting with a tripod, which I would recommend, I would go for the 17-40L. I do not see the need for a 16-35L in the situation.

[disneydork06]

you don't really need the 2.8 even with the low light. you're gonna want images that has a higher dof than 2.8 so the 17-40 would be fine. and cheaper...unless you want a reason to get the 16-35 :-)

[blueM]

I have used my 17-40 for interiors, but it is not wide enought on my 20D. On your 5D it should be plenty wide enough. Lighting, however, is another matter. Bright rooms with lots of natural light will not be a problem. I have found that rooms like Kitchens can be very difficult. Usually the windows are not large, cabinets are often dark & islands can create shadows. I think interior residential photography is a bit more art than science. The question is what are the photos for? If just for sales purposes, I don't think you will have a problem. If you are shooting for a magazine article, I will take more time to get it right.
Kevin

[Coco-Puffs]

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 HSM?

[Tee Why]

Looking at Popular Photography's online review of the Canon, at 16mm it has 2.9% barrel distortion which is a lot. I wouldn't recommend it unless you can really fix it in Photoshop.
Sigma 12-24 and 17-35 has a lot less distortion and would require little to no correction and maybe a better lens for your needs.

[MDJAK]

If you've got the ability to stitch photos, you'd be better off with a tilt shift lens. It gives much better results than a wide angle, IMO.

mark

[Wilt]

you don't really need the 2.8 even with the low light. you're gonna want images that has a higher dof than 2.8 so the 17-40 would be fine. and cheaper...unless you want a reason to get the 16-35 :-)

On a 35mm camera (or the 5D), 16mm lens focused at 7' has 4.4-16.9' in the DOF at f/2.8, so that should not be a special concern.

I tend to agree with blueM about more art than science, having used a 24mm Perspective Control lens to shoot residential interiors on 35mm. If you shoot in daylight, dealing with the bright windows vs. the interior ambient light can be problematic, and using artificial lights is also problematic in the reflection of the light sources seen in windows and mirrors.

Without shift lenses, you will need to be conscious of camera angle excessively upward or downward, causing the perspective distortion yet capturing the desired elements in the photo.

[KevC]

17-40L might be ever so slightly sharper. I think it may depend on luck too. I would say mount her on a tripod and MLU/timed release....

[Tom W]

I think that depending on the copy one gets, the 16-35 and 17-40 can generally be considered as similar in sharpness. My personal testing of 1 copy of each put my 16-35 above my 17-40 in terms of sharpness away from center, but I've seen tests that show the opposite effect.

A couple of notes - with either lens, your best results will be stopped down a bit, even though the depth-of-field is fairly deep on these ultra-wides. Corner sharpness inproves as you stop down, particularly if you happen to be shooting at the extreme wide end. Also, the 16-35 is known to have more flare than the 17-40 so if you're shooting outdoors with daylight, you will benefit from using the hood and keeping the sun well away from your frame (this could be a problem if you can't choose the time of day for your shot).

Incidentally, Wilt is right about being careful about camera angles - in the example below, barrel distortion at 16 mm wasn't a significant problem but the fact that I was slightly tilted was visible. Note how the bedroom door seems to tilt slightly to the right:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/72859497.jpg

If this was to be more than a snapshot, I'd probably have used a tripod and level to get things more accurately aligned.

[Big WIll]

17-40 on a 5d, lovely wide angle. Friend of mine has this setup.

Have seen some wonderful examples of tilt shift lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx)! Check those out!

the-digital-picture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx)
Sample Photos (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sample-Pictures.aspx?Equipment=347&desc=Canon-TS-E-24mm-f/3.5-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Sample-Pictures)

[Philco]

I've used the 16-35 and the 17-40 to show yacht interiors, but I have to chime in and say I also liked the 10-22mm Canon lens, even though it's not a fast lens. That being said, I have crop bodies, so the distotion was minimal.

[davidfig]

Frankly I don't see why you need 2.8. You want to take these pictures when the setting sun gives you the same exposure as internal to the home. The other case should be evening pictures, view etc. In both cases I think you will use a tripod. So seems like 17-40L is plenty.

[Lorem]

Frankly I don't see why you need 2.8. You want to take these pictures when the setting sun gives you the same exposure as internal to the home. The other case should be evening pictures, view etc. In both cases I think you will use a tripod. So seems like 17-40L is plenty.

Thanks everyone for your feed back. This is why I love this forum. I manage to get my business partner to go half on the 16-35mm 2.8L. So I placed the order yesterday. The reason why I think the extra 2.8L is needed because I may need this as a walk around (low light) situation at weddings.

Thanks!

I'll post back with photos and how I make out with fixing barrel distorsion using photoshop CS2.

[Wilt]

Thanks everyone for your feed back. This is why I love this forum. I manage to get my business partner to go half on the 16-35mm 2.8L. So I placed the order yesterday. The reason why I think the extra 2.8L is needed because I may need this as a walk around (low light) situation at weddings.

Thanks!

I'll post back with photos and how I make out with fixing barrel distorsion using photoshop CS2.

Wedding work on a FF camera with anything at and below 24mm is a major invitation for perspective distortion of body parts (big posterior on bride's mother; big nose on Uncle Fred...I would worry about the wrath of the bride's mother, heck with Uncle Fred!) Shooting indoor architectural scene-setting shots at 24mm and under with FF are fine, as are photos of people not close by.

[Lorem]

Wedding work on a FF camera with anything at and below 24mm is a major invitation for perspective distortion of body parts (big posterior on bride's mother; bit nose on Uncle Fred...I would worry about the wrath of the bride's mother, heck with Uncle Fred!) Shooting indoor architectural scene-setting shots at 24mm and under with FF are fine, as are photos of people not close by.


According to my signature do you think I've wasted $ with this new lens?

[Wilt]

According to my signature do you think I've wasted $ with this new lens?

My conclusion is that you were fully armed for wedding work on a FF camera already, other than perhaps having a 70-200 f/2.8 for available light (that 100-400 is pretty useless for weddings IMHO). The 16-35mm makes a nice scene-setting photo, but how many of those do you need to make? Your 24mm on the zoom already gets a pretty good scene setting shot, although maybe with not as much 'drama' as 16-20mm. And with digital photography now, does anyone still offer a 10x20" center spread in the photo album any more (like in the medium format SLR wedding days), where a 20mm or wider FOV shot lets you capture the setting yet still have the B&G large enough to be seen?!?!?! In brief, it would not have been high on my priority unless I were doing architectural interiors in addition to weddings, but then I would rather use the 24mm TSE for that!

[Lorem]

My conclusion is that you were fully armed for wedding work on a FF camera already, other than perhaps having a 70-200 f/2.8 for available light (that 100-400 is pretty useless for weddings IMHO). The 16-35mm makes a nice scene-setting photo, but how many of those do you need to make? Your 24mm on the zoom already gets a pretty good scene setting shot, although maybe with not as much 'drama' as 16-20mm. And with digital photography now, does anyone still offer a 10x20" center spread in the photo album any more (like in the medium format SLR wedding days), where a 20mm or wider FOV shot lets you capture the setting yet still have the B&G large enough to be seen?!?!?! In brief, it would not have been high on my priority unless I were doing architectural interiors in addition to weddings, but then I would rather use the 24mm TSE for that!

Thanks for your feedback. I'm some what a perfectionist and like to have lens for each and every situations. But in reality it's very difficult to switch lens in a wedding environment. I've learned so much from this forum.

[Tapeman]

Getting the 16-35 is the smart thing to do mine is fabulous, maybe not the great bang for the buck as the 17-40 but the better lens.