Lens for interior real estate pics?

I need to shoot some interior real estate photos in a small home. My 24-105 won't cut it-- although the field-of-view is fine, I need to keep the verticals straight throughout the shot.
I'm thinking the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is what I want to rent. Am I right, and what's a good way to get schooled on using it for this purpose? Youtube or ??
Thanks!

https://youtube.com/wa​tch?v=9TTB6hKxKzE

Mark Wallace did a good video on Adorama TV. There is also the 17mm T/S if you want wider.

Why won't the 24-105 work, is it not wide enough or image quality is not good enough? Also, are you using a cropped sensor or full frame?

For use of the TS-E have a look here

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_p​ages/using_tilt.html and follow the links

I used to shoot interiors for an estate agent , and never found the need for a TS-E lens ( although now I have retired I have one and would not be without it)
If you are going to get paid a lot for doing interiors then yes consider a TS-E and then the 17mm, the 24mm is not all that wide for interiors.
I get the impression from your post this is a 'one off job' if that is the case I don't think I would bother hiring one, it will take you a few days at least to get used to it and you can sort the the verticals out with software .
Before you jump and hire the lens get the trial version of DxO Optics its very good at sorting out verticals

I'm just shooting my own home with my 5DII before we market it. My 24-105 is indeed wide enough for the small rooms we have.
I make a living doing architectural renderings in Photoshop, and I spend way too much time correcting verticals in the reference photos that are given to me. It's never the same as having them correct at capture, and I wanted the pics to look as good as possible.

I guess I'll try some test photos and see how much correction would be needed with the 24-105, and if the results are acceptable to me.
Thanks for the tips and links!

If you can keep your camera level (such as by adjusting the height of your tripod), then you shouldn't have to correct verticals. This may not be feasible in all situations (e.g., cathedral ceilings), but I find it often is, especially if I shoot a little wider so I can crop the top or bottom of the image as necessary for the composition.

Trout Bum wrote in post #17628998
I'm just shooting my own home with my 5DII before we market it. My 24-105 is indeed wide enough for the small rooms we have.
I make a living doing architectural renderings in Photoshop, and I spend way too much time correcting verticals in the reference photos that are given to me. It's never the same as having them correct at capture, and I wanted the pics to look as good as possible.

I guess I'll try some test photos and see how much correction would be needed with the 24-105, and if the results are acceptable to me.
Thanks for the tips and links!

Heya,

Definitely a good idea to not go wider than 24mm on full frame for this, a lot of people immediately think ultrawide, but the distortion is annoying and more importantly, it makes things look much bigger than they are and can be a big problem for marketing when people are underwhelmed thinking a place is a mansion but is really a hobbit hole.

Tilt shift helps manage those verticals, but also allows you to do so and stitch pannos so you can get the field of view you really want depending on the final display you're using (assuming web media) such as wider field of view (again depends on how you do the final view).

You could totally rent something to experiment, but I would actually just consider picking one up if this is something you make a living doing. The Canon TSE is enormously expensive, while a very good piece of kit. But don't overlook manual lenses (you don't need AF on a wide lens for architecture, right?), like the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower/​etc 24mm Tilt Shift, they're $750 new, $600ish used pretty often and are very sharp and excellent too (just no autofocus). Worth considering if renting ends up costing 1/3rd of that for a few days!

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17630926
Heya,

Definitely a good idea to not go wider than 24mm on full frame for this, a lot of people immediately think ultrawide, but the distortion is annoying and more importantly, it makes things look much bigger than they are and can be a big problem for marketing when people are underwhelmed thinking a place is a mansion but is really a hobbit hole.

I agree with this. I have a friend who does real estate and he has been told a few times before, that rooms look too big and he needs to redo the photos.

Rooms definitely look large when you go ultrawide, but a very wide lens might be needed at times. My last house had small bathrooms, and the 12-24 F4 Tokina on crop struggled with the small rooms. No doubt about 17 stretching out a room when used on full frame, but 20 might be useful.

I have never used a tilt and shift lens, but the cost needs to be justified, for me. If a lens will be used a lot to make money, then the expense may be justified. If not, and it's sits in the bag, then it is not money well spent.

Many zooms are not at their best at the extreme end of the range, often at the wide side. The 16-35IS seems an exception here, and might be considered. Distortion drops as you zoom to a slightly longer focal length, e.g. going to 20 on the 17-40. Something like this also happens on the 24-105L. I am a rank amateur, so take these comments with a grain of salt.

On full frame, I'd rent either the 17-40 or the newer 16-35 IS.

I think the tilt shift models are overkill. But if you do want to go that route, then go for the 17mm version.

I've done some real estate photography and yes going wider than 24 on a full frame may distort the room sizes but this is pretty standard in real estate photography and the average home buyer and all the Realtors understand the issues.

More often than not the need to include at least one shot of each entire room is more important than providing a distortion free shot. We had one recently where 24mm was not wide enough to show both the waterfront and the house (and confirm how the house sits on a hill above the water) without going wider than 24. Interiors are often much more challenging.

Mixing in photos that are not wide angle (i.e. of the same rooms) keeps you from worrying about deceiving your buyers.

Ultra wide (even just 20mm on a full frame) can often be necessary for video tours as well.

I'd rent the 16-35 IS (which I have done twice - great lens) and be done with it.

On a crop, the 10-18 is perfectly fine for these purposes.

I should add that, if this is a very expensive/exclusive property where millions of dollars are going to be involved, well then, a higher standard may apply.

I should have made it clearer that I don't do this for a living (although I might give it a shot when I'm retired a year from now !) I also forgot to mention that I have a 17-40 as well. Between that (at 20mm) and the 24-105, I think I might be good. As I said previously, I'm just shooting our own home (and unfortunately it's a far cry from "a very expensive/exclusive property"! )

I can rent the 24T/S for $74 for 4 days (Lensrentals)-- it would be nice to be able to shift a couple of panos, especially since our living room has a vaulted/beamed ceiling. I'm thinking that my usual pano set-up is going to have a problem with that. I guess the issue is will I spend too much time just trying to figure it out-- I definitely can't afford to buy one. Guess I'll do some more testing...

Thanks for all the advice!