What lens do Estate Agents generally use for their interior shots

Remember those cereal box with photos of flakes floating dreamily on immaculate white milk? Only the milk wasn't milk: it was glue. The flakes would have sunk and/or become soggy very quickly, giving the photographer very little time to make adjustments let alone photos. Hamburgers are another case in point, painted with oil so that the meat remains shiny.

Tricks of the trade; only now we have regulations stating that the products depicted on product boxes must be the real products, else it'd be misleading. I'm not going to pull up stats on lawsuits to prove to anyone that this happens: considering how litigious our societies have become and how easily 'offended' people are, it matters not if it hasn't happened yet, it will eventually happen.

From our law:

Source:
http://www.advertising​lawyer.ca/advertising.​htm

There's enough material there for any shrewd lawyer to take advantage of the ambiguous and the subjective to make a case or at the very least a fuss. When all that matters is the 'general impression', the possibilities are endless. Now, if you want to deal with that, be my guest. Some of us are not so rich or reckless to be taking risks when simply using a 24mm focal length would keep everyone happy.

Call it trolling if you will. What bothers me is not so much the suggestion of aggrandising a reduced space, but the attitude that what matters is making money, regardless of the means. If you have to exaggerate, twist, twirl, photoshop, trick or mislead, it's alright: the end justifies the means, doesn't it?

No, it does not.

wow. i think this thread has gone a bit far for the discussion

i agree - the photographer is in a position to make something look more or less attractive with his/her art.
In regards to the shots from real estate - i believe the point is getting someone in the door to look at a property. At that point, the photograph has nothing more to do with the sale - since the person has seen the place.

After searching for 2 years and seeing multitiudes of houses, I can say (at least for myself) that photographs may have brought me to a door, but it usually did not cause me to purchase a house, and since I was willing to reconstruct the house to my own liking, bad photographs didn't prevent me from going to houses i deemed as "potential"

except in the extreme cases, like fraud or whatever - I cannot imagine that attempts to put out higher end product photography would do anyhting beyond just get the attention of the people. My sister is selling her place now and they had a professional come in - almost empty her entire house of daily things, redid the flower beds, cleaned up all sorts of additional spaces, and took photographs including 360 degree shts available on the net....

would you consider that fraudulant or a trick?

as in all cases the byer needs to beware...but that shouldn't be news to anyone. Just the question is HOW beware....

Beware of armchair legal advice. It's usually worth less than you paid for it.

If there were anything to be concerned about when photographing architecture -- and there generally isn't, aside from normal contractual issues such as failing to take the photos you've agreed to take, or damaging the property while you're doing your setups -- it would be using too narrow a field of view and failing to show or disclose a problem or hidden vice or defect in the property. Using a wider lens and including more in the shot would tend to reduce any legal liability. Remember, the buyer is normally presumed to be aware of those things that can be seen with normal diligence. So the more the seller shows, the less likely it is a disgruntled buyer can win on a claim of hidden defects.

Legal liability arising from using a wide lens would be the absolute last thing that would cause me to loose any sleep.

granted the internet is not the best place to try and change someone's mind but potential legalities aside …

Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

Article 2
REALTORS® shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction.

http://www.realtor.org …/2015/2015-COE-Poster.pdf

You've cited legal and realtor materials to support your view, don't forget the Good Book:

"Thou shalt not exaggerate perspective".

Bonbridge wrote in post #17578039
I am a full time real Estate photographer. I photograph 5 or 6 buildings a day, 5 days a week. And I use the 6D in combination with a 17-40L (for all the normal interior and exterior shots) and the Sigma 8mm for the 360 photo's. I use the 6D Wifi for the mast photo's.

When I do work for myself I use my own 16-35L IS for the real estate work. I like the 16-35 better. The 17-40L is not my own lens, but from the company I work for, so that's why I use the 17-40L.

I would buy the 16-35L IS if you can afford it. If it is a little too pricey I would pick the 17-40L. There is absolutely NO NEED for a 11-24 or so. 17mm is already too wide. I mostly use my lens at 18/19 or 20mm.

Thanks for the input. I'm also planning to get the 11-24 but thinking of my 10-22 on the crop body i'm confused a little. Exterior shots, using 10 mm sometimes the building becomes too small in the photo so there's no composition unless i get really close to the building. Or interior shots, the details maybe lost at 11mm.

I think of the 17 mm TS-E but not sure as i don't feel like getting into a challenge to learn how to use it. And it's manual focus, my nightmare.

16-35 seems optimum, idk if 2.8 may open some new worlds but IS always makes me feel safe and that F/2.8 doesn't seem that useful on an UWA.

This thread looks useful, i can read all the posts at an appropriate time.

Robinson Crusoe wrote in post #17602252
Thanks for the input. I'm also planning to get the 11-24 but thinking of my 10-22 on the crop body i'm confused a little. Exterior shots, using 10 mm sometimes the building becomes too small in the photo so there's no composition unless i get really close to the building. Or interior shots, the details maybe lost at 11mm.

I think of the 17 mm TS-E but not sure as i don't feel like getting into a challenge to learn how to use it. And it's manual focus, my nightmare.

16-35 seems optimum, idk if 2.8 may open some new worlds but IS always makes me feel safe and that F/2.8 doesn't seem that useful on an UWA.

This thread looks useful, i can read all the posts at an appropriate time.

Manual focus at 17mm isnt much of an issue. You get plenty of depth of field to deal with minor focus issues.

I worked at a great little architecture/commercia​l photo firm many years ago, so I have some familiarity with the practical side of making images routinely published in national architecture magazines and periodicals. I've been away from that side of things for many years but some principles haven't changed.

My recommendation for the best and most versatile single lens for architecture that is commonly available and reasonably priced would be the Canon 17mm TS.

If you're interested in pro quality work it's imperative to keep verticals straight and parallel. In that regard, the 17mm TS has few peers. You'd probably end up using shift on the large majority of shots so you can get the height and vantage point that's optimal without including too much floor or ceiling. Or it's a great way to stitch a few shots together for an even wider or taller effective fov with no parallax problems. Tilt would probably be used much less often.

You can achieve similar results using something like the 16-35mm f/4 (a terrific lens btw) and straightening in post, but then you'd often have to crop pretty severely, which effectively changes the focal length, decreases sharpness and sometimes results in having to crop out important details.

The 16-35mm f4 would be my choice in a non TS zoom. Nice and sharp, IS works great and it has a very useful zoom range. I haven't tried the new 11-24mm, but it seems to be a fantastic lens albeit at 3 times the price of the 16-35mm. If I were still doing professional work, I'd probably try to pick up the 11-24mm.

I'd definitely opt for a wider rather than a longer focal length. If your lens turns out to be too wide you could always crop and still get a perfectly useable image. But if your lens isn't wide enough you'll miss a lot of shots -- that is unless you have the time and resources to stitch multiple images together.

Good luck!