Hi All, I'm a realtor (6years) current setup is an Canon EOS withthe stock 18-55mm lens and a slave Flash. The pictures I take of theinterior of normal homes far exceed the quality of peers using"normal realtor pocket digitals" I come in and setup accent lightstoo! After Photo-shopping, I get very good results for Internetpresentations. However, I need/want to step up a notch with a widerlens than the 18mm. Tell suggestions: 10-20MM or perhaps a fixed15mm? or something I have not seen? I do not, cannot have fish-eyedistortions..
I would get something like the 10-20mm. I assume you have a crop camera so the you'll want something wider to make up for the crop factor. Tamron and Sigma have nice alternatives too, if money is an issue. You've already said that your images are better than competitors, so I don't think you'll need the 15mm with extra sharpness, or option to use less depth of field, unless you'd have people pixel peepin them lol..
If you really want the widest you can get, moving up to a 1.3 crop camera or full frame would really make the most difference, but they're expensive and something like 10-22 should be good enough...
I don't have any lens advice, but I just wanted to say thank you for giving a **** when it comes to pictures. We are currently looking for a new home, and it's unbelievable to me the picture realtors post of their listings, and the conditions in which sellers allow pictures of their homes to be taken. I'm sure I've passed up many a nice house just b/c of the horrible pictures...
You may want to look at tilt shift lenses from Canon, like this one:.
They correct perspective distortion..
10-22 is good for interiors, except that it distorts proportions (in yr favour, making the room look larger).
If you are mildly skilled in post processing, I would suggest stitch/panorama shots of interiors..
I started a thread on the same subject few weeks ago, not one response. Truth is , it almost seems that no.1 qualification for becoming a realtor is inability to handle a camera..
In my area there are few good realtors, but 95% are horrid. My neighbour sold the house for 5.5 mln, it was listed for 5 995 mln. The brochure that we got in the mailbox was a shame. Everything was wrong, print, colour, distortion, washed out sky, yellow lawn.I wonder if that brochure had anything to do with a 495k price drop..
The other issue that I see is the fact that wherever you have 4 seasons, it is difficult to produce an attractive external photo in early spring, late fall..
If I were a realtor, I would offer prospects in my area free summer/snowy winter portfolio of external pictures, just in case..
Second, I never see evening/night pictres of houses and some of them are very attractive then..
Third, If I were a a realtor I would never take pics in frontal light, when a house looks like a cardboard decoration. I would even consider my own flood-ligh to produce some texture/3D..
This is not expensive stuff, nor is it difficult.Rgds..
The Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20 are the usual suggestions when you want a good wide angle. Sigma also has a 12-24 that will work on full frame camera if you decide to upgrade..
Any lens this wide will distort, if you don't pay attention. There will be some corner distortion, but it is usually minor and easily fixed in post..
I also applaud a realtor trying to take good pictures. Most are horrid..
Crime Scene PhotographyA small gallery of personal work: http://picasaweb.google.com/PID885..
How critical are you? Hard for us to tell. Many people SAY they are critical, but often that's not the case..
With a dSLR, it's difficult/expensive to get a super-WA lens that doesn't have distortion and aberations. Note that I didn't say impossible...just expensive..
I would seriously consider a less WA lens and then stitch several exposures together. You have control of the distortion! You can also use a camera with fewer pixels...that gives better noise...but when you stitch several frames together, you get a higher resolution. That's a win-win situation..
Also, some realtors are doing 360degree VR images. Sorry, I didn't find an example, but here is something to show you the possibilities if you don't know about this:.
Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..
I am open to a new Digital or DSLR of any brand that has a very widelens..
Since you mentioned you have a Canon, people (rightly) gave you advice on Canon gear to get..
If you indeed are open to buying another brand, Olympus becomes an option. They have an EXCELLENT 7-14 mm zoom, which works out as the equivalent of 14-28 on 35 mm. I have yet to see any negative comments about anything but it's one downside..
The downside is of course price: it's a pro lens and costs 1500 or more. However, it works perfectly with entry level Olympus bodies and gives a 14 mm wide angle - I believe one has to go to (very expensive!) 35 mm sensor cameras to get anything that wide elsewhere. Some say one needs to buy the Nikon D3 and 14-24 for equivalent results - and that means more than double the price of the Olympus!.
The Canon suggestions are probably very good too, but if you want the ultimate wide angle lens in it's class the Olympus 7-14 is probably it. Since you're getting the equipment for your job, you can probably justify the price without a problem.http://flickr.com/photos/iskender..