Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 31, 2012, 10:07 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Old Boat Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 362
Default In door lens for real estate

I have been doing real estate photography lately and find myself in need of a super short lens for indoor shots.

Right now my only options are a Tamron 17-50 that is a great lens but not for this and a 16mm Minolta fisheye that makes everything look like it was shot through a fun house mirror.

I appreciate any and all input.

Steve
Old Boat Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 31, 2012, 12:07 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,274
Default

I find that 17mm is quite often not wide enough to capture most rooms. With an APS-C body the Tamron 10-24 or the Sigma 10-20 will work nicely. There will be some distortion but it is nicely controlled as long as you shoot level.
Personally I have the Tamron. I'm happy with it and I'm read that most are happy with the Sigma as well.
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2012, 1:56 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Note that Tokina has recently started offering some of their lenses in Minolta Alpha Mount again (after a long break, probably due to concerns about the mount future after Sony purchased Konica Minolta), and they now offer the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for Sony/Minolta AF mount cameras.

It doesn't have as much range from wide to long as some of it's competitors. But, it's brighter than most, and it's a very sharp lens from what I can see of it's reviews.

It's not cheap ($699 now at vendors like B&H). But, it may do the trick for indoor real estate, offering brighter apertures when needed with very sharp images. The Tokina Pro lens lineup is also known for excellent build quality.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._AT_X_116.html

About the only downside I've seen mentioned compared to other similar lenses is higher lateral CA compared to some of it's competition. But, that kind of CA is more easily corrected using most image editing software (Lightroom, etc.). Here's a professional review of one on a Canon over at photozone.de:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/379-..._1116_28_canon

Some user reviews over at fredmiranda.com:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=352

Ken Rockwell's comparision of some ultra wides including the tokina:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...comparison.htm

Listing for it over at Dyxum.com (including a link to 22 reviews from KM and Sony dSLR owners):

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=561
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2012, 2:27 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

One of the problems with ultrawide lenses indoors is that most flashes don't go that wide, even bounced, so you'd probably need two.

Also, distortion can make doors, windows and walls look funny.

I think I'd go with an ultrawide, but keep it within the range of a single flash. Then the distortion, vignetting and sharpness would be reasonably good.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2012, 2:55 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Old Boat Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 362
Default

You got it Mike. On APS-C, 17mm is a ton if you are in a tight space.

I did learn early on to shoot at eye level or below. The first time out I decided that the Tamron at 17mm would have the widest field of view if I held the camera up into a corner of the room. Those shots were so bad as to be hysterical.

Here is the first of what may be dumb questions. If shooting in a staged room would one ever use f/2.8? My first guess would be that DOF would be to short. I may be doing it wrong but I think my A550 fudges a bit even in multi area focus. It picks something mid point and the narrower depth of field is more dramatic in front of the focal point than behind.

JimC, I was paying attention when you were explaining to me how to use my flash. I have my HVL-F58AM on a short tripod and use a Gary Fong puffer on the camera. I am still learning about hot spots relating to color and surface angle but I am gaining on it quickly.

I have discovered that I have zero artistic talent when it comes to photography. I thrive on technical applications.

I was thinking of a lens in the 6mm range and at one time I thought someone made them (Tokina maybe)
Old Boat Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2012, 3:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Old Boat Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 362
Default

Sorry TCav. I guess I replied as you were posting. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 makes trapezoidals out of straight lines. Early on you told me about the fisheye and I did not believe you because by your own sticky my APS-C camera does not see through the widest part of the lens. Those shots were extra bad.
Old Boat Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2012, 3:04 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You have a lot of DOF at shorter focal lengths. So, you can get away with using wider apertures.

But, you probably wouldn't need f/2.8 very often for stationary subjects. Where that kind of lens can come in handy is because it's very sharp (sharper than the Tamron/Sigma competition from what I can see of reviews), especially when stopped down to f/4 or more (and it's usable even wide open from what users say about it).

6mm, huh? I'd probably forget that for something like real estate photography and just stitch more than one image together in Post Processing if you really want something wider than you'd get from a typical ultra wide lens. Otherwise, distortion is going to kill you.

With typical ultra wide lenses (10-20mm, 11-16mm, 12-24mm, etc.), distortion is really not too bad, and is simple to correct in most image editing software (Adobe Lightroom, Corel Aftershot Pro, DxO Optics Pro, etc.). I even see preinstalled profiles for the lenses being discussed in the latest Corel AfterShot Pro I just installed recently (so I can click a box for lens correction and let it handle distortion, CA and vignetting for me). I think you'll find profiles for them in Adobe Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro and other similar software, too.

But, with something much wider, I think you'd have too many issues if you want relatively accurate looking images (as you would lose a lot of your angle of view after distortion correction when looking at typical 6mm lenses, as those are not going to resemble anything close to being rectlinear). IOW, you're looking at fisheye lenses when you get a lens that wide. If you need wider, stick to the types of lenses being discussed (not fisheye lenses), use a tripod, keep the camera level, take more than one image with plenty of overlap, and stitch them together in Post Processing.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2012, 3:48 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Sigma does make a wider 8-16mm if you really want something wider than the typical ultra wide lenses starting out at 10 to 12mm. So, it may be worth looking at, too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._6_DC_HSM.html

Here's a review of one on a 7D over at slrgear.com:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...p/product/1330

Here's it's listing at dyxum.com with links to some user reviews from KM/Sony owners:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=579

But, again, another way to approach it is by taking multiple photos and stitching them together in post processing using software for that purpose (you'll find lots of Panorama software available anymore, and a lot of it also allows multiple rows and columns of images, so you can combine multiple shots into one final image showing more of the space you're trying to capture).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2012, 9:03 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Boat Guy View Post
The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 makes trapezoidals out of straight lines. ...
Trapezoidals mean you weren't holding the camera level. Distortion turns all the straight lines into curved ones in the corners (as in barrel and pincushion distortion.) The Tamron 17-50/2.8 has less distortion at 17mm than some UWA lenses.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2012, 1:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Old Boat Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Trapezoidals mean you weren't holding the camera level. Distortion turns all the straight lines into curved ones in the corners (as in barrel and pincushion distortion.)
I learned this one the hard way. When the lady asked me if I would give this a try my first thought was "how hard could it be". I should have known right then that I was in trouble. I laughed my butt off when I took a good look at the first set I did with the 16 mm fisheye held up in a corner. Those shots were so bad that Epic is the only word I can use to describe how bad.

I am not sure if this is the correct way but what I try to do is show it as the eye would see the space. The houses I am shooting are listed in the larger markets on realty association sites where a realtor from another area can post listings for a membership fee. Where it works for me is these are not Better Homes types of shots. What they want here is an accurate representation of the home with an emphasis on any faults. If someone loads up from Dallas to come look at homes the worst thing that can happen is they go back and tell the association the images did not accurately represent the property. Enough comments can get a realtor booted from the association. You want the shots of rooms to look nice but if there was a laundry room leak someone tried to hide with multiple coats of Kills primer that better show glaring detail.

I have a coupon to one of the rental sites that has the Sigma 8-16, the 10-20, and the Tamron 10-24 so I might get all of them for a week and see what works best. My Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is an incredible lens. (most gracious thanks to those here who helped steer me to that lens) Doing snaps at a holiday gathering it can't be beat but for trying to do room interiors it feels a bit cramped.

I think it was Mike that had posted indoor shots using an off camera flash triggered by the on camera flash. I asked technique questions at the time and have practiced in my own home. I seem to do well in that regard.

The people hiring me are satisfied with the output but I know I can do better. I can always do better.

Stitching images is something I need to learn but for the time being I do not have the skills. I ran some searches on software and am reviewing them at this time.

I appreciate the comments and advice. I will post some images of this coming weeks efforts for critique.

Steve
Old Boat Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:44 PM.