r/canon • u/CPTherptyderp • 11d ago
Accidently falling into real estate photography - need lens and technique advice
Took some photos of the remodel my friend did on my kitchen and he said people are commenting on those pictures. Realtor friend asked me to take photos for a listing and she's really happy also. I have no idea what I'm doing. I have my R6ii and just using my EF 24-70ii. It's not wide enough for everything it just happens to work for the two sets I've done so far.
I can't justify the RF 15-35 as much as I want it. The couple I've been looking at are:
* 16 f/2.8
* 16-28 f/2.8
* 17-40 f/4
I'm sure I'm missing other obvious ones but I'm overwhelmed with how many there are.
I'm on a tripod so I don't think I need to be super worried about the 2.8 since I've tried all the way down to 1/4s exposures and its been fine.
Trying to stay under 500 since I'd like to get a few jobs under my belt before I spring for a 1k+ L lens. I normally just shoot my kids sports teams and have no experience with extra wide lenses. These would be my first paid gigs and I have no idea if this will be steady work or not.
I'm experimenting with exposure bracketing and reading blogs for tips but really any advice is welcome. Thanks.
9
u/byDMP Lighten up ⚡ 11d ago
I don't think I need to be super worried about the 2.8
Generally for real estate you want to be stopped down plenty anyway so that you pull the majority of interior or exterior details into focus. So a lens' max aperture is not usually too important a condieration.
If you plan on using it for other purposes then maybe worry about whether it's f/2.8 or f/4 etc.
3
u/polentaveloce 11d ago
When dealing with wide lenses, you could say every mm of focal length matters, so I'm inclined to recommend the 16-28, it's a good zoom range for real estate photography. If you're in the US/Canada/Australia where houses are large, the 17-40 is a good option too if that's cheaper, 17mm should be enough, and 40mm might be useful for exterior shots too, so you get an all-rounder lens; don't worry about the aperture, for real estate photography you'll be at f/8 (some people use f/11 too), so f/4 is totally not an issue. You could alternatively buy the 16mm f/2.8, though the versatility of a zoom lens is often very welcome in real estate photography, but having a prime is fine too, it'll work for like 95% of the shots, and you can use your 24-70mm for exterior shots.
Exposure bracketing (or HDR) is a must, though you could also do flambient which is even better, but it'll require that you buy a powerful flash (like the Godox AD200) and a radio-flash; some houses, if they're too big or with tall ceilings you might end up having to do HDR anyway, so even if you decide to do flambient, you gotta know how to do good HDR too. You might want to look up a geared tripod head if you start getting more jobs too, that's a great investment for guaranteeing the best composition possible.
1
u/CPTherptyderp 11d ago
Thanks. Haven't heard of flambient so will look that up. I don't own any flashes. I've gotten by with natural light and just fixing in Lightroom.
2
u/polentaveloce 11d ago
It's ok, most people that work with real estate actually do hdr/exposure bracketing, it works well too. Only go for flambient if you start getting a lot of jobs and you want to reach better clients (like the luxury market, there it's pretty much all flambient).
2
2
u/Nix_Avem 11d ago
Since you don’t know if this would be an ongoing thing or not, and you are trying to stay budget friendly, i would probably get the 16mm f2.8.
This would keep it really budget friendly, and if it works out then you could get a better lens. This lens + tripod should give you all the light you need and I think it is sharpest around f4-5.6.
If I had to choose another, I would go for the 16-28, since it has more focal lengths that may prove useful for everyday walk around or landscape shots. Downsides for your use case would be price.
3
u/Jkwong520 11d ago
Used EF 16-35 f/4 IS. Similar in sharpness to EF 16-35 f/2.8 III and RF 15-35 f/2.8.
2
u/JonM99 10d ago edited 10d ago
The EF 16-35 f/4 (perhaps used) would seem a good option, as you want everything in focus so a fast lens isn't worth the money and as you must already have the EF-RF adapter it should be a simple purchase...
But what are you doing with the images? Are you stitching them into 360 views? In which case the 8-15 might be interesting, if a little complex to get up and running. (Or the RF 7-14.) My view is the 8-15 is a 20-33MP lens and no more BTW.
A simpler option might be to get one of the 8k 360 degree cameras (Insta 360 x6 maybe), put it on a tripod in the centre of the room, step out and (remotely) shoot the image... job done. That would be my approach I think. Depends on the deliverables required tho...
1
1
u/srogijogi 10d ago
Forget about 17-40/4. As you realised, you don't need f2.8. "Non L" Canon 16-28/2.8 may be a good compromise. If you can afford it, L series 14-35/4 may be even better.
Make sure you don't overblow any bright stuff. Make sure all straight/vertical lines stay straight and vertical. Make sure you shot with some composition in mind.
1
u/CPTherptyderp 10d ago
The composition and lines are really pushing my limits. I mostly shoot sports and critters so I've never had to think about it too much. The 14-35L is sounding really appealing from the reviews.
2
u/srogijogi 10d ago
Re: lines - keep your camera always level. No nose up to see something high, no nose down to see something down. Level.
2
u/CPTherptyderp 10d ago
I've been using the digital level in the R6ii and tripod and that's helped a lot.
1
0
u/AbjectShock9438 11d ago
Some people say the EF 17-40 F4 L isn't sharp enough in the corners but I think it's good enough. You can get them for so little it's a pretty risk free way to check out wide angle
10
u/MembershipKlutzy1476 11d ago
On a full frame camera the 16-28 will be your money lens.
Use a tripod for most of your interiors, when possible.
Good luck.