Lens for house sale pictures

Elines

Elines

Messages
1,156
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
No
I have tried to search the TP for an answer but got nowhere so hopefully I am not duplicating.


My daughter is selling her house herself on the internet and is intending to hire a 'fish eye' lens to show off the rooms in the 'best'/most advantageous' way.

Just thought I'd ask on here for views regarding the most suitable lens and why. (I think that 'fish eye' lenses give a very distorted, and often unattractive, image.)

The camera body will be a Canon 550D.

Does anyone have any particular knowledge in this area - it is totally outside my experience?
 
ultrawide angle will make the rooms look bigger
sigma 10-20mm, tamron 10-24mm, tokina 11 to something, canon probably do a crop ultrawide angle
theres a sigma 8-16 too..
 
This guy does it for a living, very informative. HERE
 
Thanks for all these prompt replies.

I have looked at the Dom Bower you tube videos and it confirms my suspicion that it isn't as simple as my daughter thinks - and the videos help me to articulate why.

DB uses a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens. Not sure if this will fit on a 550D body but the hirer can advise and if not what an equivalent is. Main message seems to be that the lens should be wide angle NOT fisheye.

Andy your pictures look great to me and if we can produces stuff as good, then I for one will be well impressed:)

Thanks again to everybody
 
Elines said:
Thanks for all these prompt replies.

I have looked at the Dom Bower you tube videos and it confirms my suspicion that it isn't as simple as my daughter thinks - and the videos help me to articulate why.

DB uses a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens. Not sure if this will fit on a 550D body but the hirer can advise and if not what an equivalent is. Main message seems to be that the lens should be wide angle NOT fisheye.

Andy your pictures look great to me and if we can produces stuff as good, then I for one will be well impressed:)

Thanks again to everybody
Click to expand...


It will fit - just won't appear as wide.
 
It is not just the lens - don't forget good tripod, flash(es) and a copy of Lightroom or photoshop. That's the min to get decent shots, but you can go a lot further than that. You don't want to short sell the house, do you?
 
daugirdas said:
It is not just the lens - don't forget good tripod, flash(es) and a copy of Lightroom or photoshop. That's the min to get decent shots, but you can go a lot further than that. You don't want to short sell the house, do you?
Click to expand...

It depends what you want to achieve photograph wise and how the images are going to be displayed.

You could for example produce images which will look good on screen or even in smallish prints (A4 or smaller) with any modern CSC or APS-C camera and free processing software and you could probably get by with a fair few modern compact cameras too even when shooting in camera JPEG's at higher ISO's without either a tripod or multiple flashes (would you need a tripod when shooting with flashes?) For example, my old 20D could produce good images at ISO 800-1600 when shooting with available light handheld indoors with a wide angle lens at f4-5.6.

Yes you'll do better with half a dozen or more flashes and years of practice but for on screen use and smallish prints a more humble set up may be enough, with care.
 
Based on the poor photos I regularly see in house ads, I'd say that some money spent buying the required lens and a flash or two would probably pay off. I'm looking at rentals at the minute, and the amount of place I'm put off by a lack of photos, or a blurry photo showing one corner of a room, is unreal.
 
miker said:
Based on the poor photos I regularly see in house ads, I'd say that some money spent buying the required lens and a flash or two would probably pay off. I'm looking at rentals at the minute, and the amount of place I'm put off by a lack of photos, or a blurry photo showing one corner of a room, is unreal.
Click to expand...

Get to that point and you'll need the ability to shoot with that kit and IMVHO it'd possibly be cheaper and easier to buy a photographer in.
 
Elines said:
The camera body will be a Canon 550D.

Does anyone have any particular knowledge in this area - it is totally outside my experience?
Click to expand...

I'd say that if she has a kit lens she should have a go with that first at its widest zoom and widest aperture if shooting with available light. Remember that what you see through the VF is what you get so she may find keeping the camera level an advantage to avoid the verticals looking odd. I remember shooting a kitchen build with my 20D and a 12-24mm and not using the wider end much so a kit lens at 18mm may be just enough. If not a 10-20mm may be a help but when using the wider focal length really looking at the shot through the VF before shooting and avoiding perspective distortion may be even more important.
 
I'd suggest not going under 10mm on a crop body otherwise distortion becomes a major factor. Correctable with PP - with practice and patience!

Given the dross estate agents pump out and call photos which the large majority accept enough to arrange a viewing, a bit of planning and some carefully thought out shots will help. She could rent an ultrawide but it's not a necessity. I speak from experiance from when I used to shoot interiors using a couple of Sigma 10-20's and a 17-70.

Definitely use a tripod, think carefully about where the sun is and how much is coming through the windows and declutter. You can spend ages and a fortune on lighting but for the results you need it really isn't needed. Go for f16, chest height in a door way, waist height in the middle of the room and you'll be fine. Good little tip is to only have maximum 3 walls in the shot, frame to have more ceiling then floor and watch reflections and windows. A good interior shot doesn't necessarily mean you get the whole interior in. Oh - and go warm on the WB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
woof woof said:
It depends what you want to achieve photograph wise and how the images are going to be displayed.

You could for example produce images which will look good on screen or even in smallish prints (A4 or smaller) with any modern CSC or APS-C camera and free processing software and you could probably get by with a fair few modern compact cameras too even when shooting in camera JPEG's at higher ISO's without either a tripod or multiple flashes (would you need a tripod when shooting with flashes?) For example, my old 20D could produce good images at ISO 800-1600 when shooting with available light handheld indoors with a wide angle lens at f4-5.6.

Yes you'll do better with half a dozen or more flashes and years of practice but for on screen use and smallish prints a more humble set up may be enough, with care.
Click to expand...

A word of warning if you follow this advice. This could lose a lot of interested parties in a house and wipe off £x0,000 from the final sum. You may as well say 'come and have a look, I can't be bothered' just like many bad agents do these days.

You may have guessed that good dynamic range is essential, this means decent camera. The light is never as it should be so we have to use some flash. Processing is about as important as putting oil in the engine. Do you suggest bad colours, blown highlights and converging verticals are good?! Fair enough then. Finally your suggestion to use compact with not very wide lens or 18-55mm job is worth applause.
If you didn't do this professionally please do not make such bad suggestions. Please feel free to test this on your own house if you ever sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Big thanks for the further info and comments.

Just about to go out so only a short/quick reply.

The camera is mine and she wants to borrow it but I am saying it is too complicated for that.

I have a good tripod - Manfrotto - and one off-camera flash that I am still getting to grips with

I have Photoshop elements 11 and am reasonably proficient with it - but my processing will be nowhere near as quick as DBs

Thanks for the advice on height for shots, suitability of the DB lens with the 550D etc.

I will take a few shots of my own house with my kit lens to send to here so she can see if renting a lens is necessary (in her view).

Finding the cost of a professional to do the job is worthwhile too.

Sorry if I've missed any suggestions out - need to rush - thanks again - really , really helpful
 
dxo have a 30 day trial that's full feature and no watermark, will do a decent job unless you need local adjustments, then you need to edit it in something after
 
daugirdas said:
A word of warning if you follow this advice. This could lose a lot of interested parties in a house and wipe off £x0,000 from the final sum. You may as well say 'come and have a look, I can't be bothered' just like many bad agents do these days.

You may have guessed that good dynamic range is essential, this means decent camera. The light is never as it should be so we have to use some flash. Processing is about as important as putting oil in the engine. Do you suggest bad colours, blown highlights and converging verticals are good?! Fair enough then. Finally your suggestion to use compact with not very wide lens or 18-55mm job is worth applause.
If you didn't do this professionally please do not make such bad suggestions. Please feel free to test this on your own house if you ever sell.
Click to expand...

Good grief...

I'll leave the bad colours blown highlights and converging verticals to you and suggest that if you can't do better you should attend a course or at least study some on line videos.

The original brief was advice for self taken pictures to be posted on the net not to produce a professional portfolio shoot with kit costing more than some apartments.

OP. I hope you've got an idea how to proceed.
 
Yes - As a result of the various posts above, I am infinitely better placed to advise my daughter on the whole subject than I was when she first raised it.

So thanks to everyone

Chris
 
Elines said:
Andy your pictures look great to me and if we can produces stuff as good, then I for one will be well impressed:)
Click to expand...

Thanks very much. :)

I used the 10-20mm mounted on a tripod and a remote release - no flash. Shot in RAW so I could manipulate the image easier and away you go.

Hope you do get it sorted :)
 
pingu666 said:
dxo have a 30 day trial that's full feature and no watermark, will do a decent job unless you need local adjustments, then you need to edit it in something after
Click to expand...

Sorry - I missed this suggestion - thanks for it but my brain is about to explode trying to learn how to do flash, learn PSE 11 and the Nik collection all along with generally trying to get my head round sharpening so another piece of something that needs brain power is beyond me at the moment:)
 
My gf is an estate agent and she now uses my old Sony A350 with the 18-70 it came with to take her house pics.

The camera work provided was a sub £50 compact so it goes without saying that now she's figured out how to use it the pictures are far better. (ideally it would be a wider angle but it does the job for the types of houses she sells)

as woof woof said if the pics are going online it's not hard to get far better pictures than most. The quality of pictures used to sell houses is generally shocking so I'm sure with a bit of time/thought and a wide angle lens your daughter will be able to stand out enough to get lots of people through the door!
 
One note of caution (and this was given to me by an estate agent many years ago), don't go too wide angle and create the impression the rooms are in fact larger\more spacious than in real life. Ultra wide angle lenses (10-22mm for example) can at the wide end produce an image that is not representative of the space (and I'm not talking converging verticals).

You may end up alienating potential buyers who turn up
 
tuttonp said:
One note of caution (and this was given to me by an estate agent many years ago), don't go too wide angle and create the impression the rooms are in fact larger\more spacious than in real life. Ultra wide angle lenses (10-22mm for example) can at the wide end produce an image that is not representative of the space (and I'm not talking converging verticals).

You may end up alienating potential buyers who turn up
Click to expand...


Thanks for that.

I have now taken some pictures of my own house with the standard kit lens (18 - 55mm) and sent them to my daughter so that she can judge if it is what she wants
 
mjScall said:
...........................

as woof woof said if the pics are going online it's not hard to get far better pictures than most. The quality of pictures used to sell houses is generally shocking so I'm sure with a bit of time/thought and a wide angle lens your daughter will be able to stand out enough to get lots of people through the door!
Click to expand...

Yes - I'd hope that if I end up taking them then whatever I produce should at leas be better than many DIYers and some estate agents, based on low esteem in which people generally hold estate agents :)
 
tuttonp said:
One note of caution (and this was given to me by an estate agent many years ago), don't go too wide angle and create the impression the rooms are in fact larger\more spacious than in real life. Ultra wide angle lenses (10-22mm for example) can at the wide end produce an image that is not representative of the space (and I'm not talking converging verticals).

You may end up alienating potential buyers who turn up
Click to expand...

I would run away from such agents. Maybe 50mm is representative then?! :lol:

Have a look at US listings. They do it properly. Almost all UK RE market is total joke and I am not talking about the house prices yet.
 
daugirdas said:
I would run away from such agents. Maybe 50mm is representative then?! :LOL:

Have a look at US listings. They do it properly. Almost all UK RE market is total joke and I am not talking about the house prices yet.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't agree with that. An ultrawide distorts - thats a fact and even with processing if you are shooting a small room to look massive, anyone who comes with the hope of seeing a massive room and finds a small room is going to be dissapointed.

To repeat my earlier comment, based on photographing interiors regularly for the past 8 years now, you don't have to get the entire room in the shot.
 
cw318is said:
I really wouldn't agree with that. An ultrawide distorts - thats a fact and even with processing if you are shooting a small room to look massive, anyone who comes with the hope of seeing a massive room and finds a small room is going to be dissapointed.

To repeat my earlier comment, based on photographing interiors regularly for the past 8 years now, you don't have to get the entire room in the shot.
Click to expand...
Without sounding anal, good UWA lenses don't distort. It's the massive field of view that can be unnatural, but it's not distortion :)

I shot a couple if interiors very successfully using a canon 10-22 (using most of the lenses range depending on the room) with off camera flashes.
 
I'm going over to my daughter's tomorrow to shoot some photos with the standard kit lens - 18-55mm - so that she can see if they are good enough for her purposes.
 
Elines said:
I'm going over to my daughter's tomorrow to shoot some photos with the standard kit lens - 18-55mm - so that she can see if they are good enough for her purposes.
Click to expand...

Let us know how you get on :)
 
I'd add that keeping the verticals vertical & the quality of the images are more important than how wide you can get. I certainly think fisheye would be a bad idea imo. I'd even be tempted to suggest a tripod & subtle HDR to keep the dynamic range. Worth the bit of extra effort to get it right in this situation I think.
 
Horizontal on the horiztonal plane, vertical on the vertical plane, speed light with diffused light pattern potentially, bounced flash behind and upwards, good hoover and dusting and make the space look nice and bright. Its how I'd do it.
 
Just come back from my daughters.

In short she thought that the kit 18 - 55 lens gave too small a view of the rooms.

She showed me pictures (on the web) of a house she is interested in and it was clear to me that the verticals were all splayed outwards (from bottom to top) but gave a wider view of the rooms (or appeared to). She didn't seem to mind the splaying and will be looking at another way to get the type of pictures she wants.

But at least she considered the option of the standard lens.

Thanks for all your help - I'm sure it will be invaluable to others searching for advice on the same topic.
 
Elines said:
Just come back from my daughters.

In short she thought that the kit 18 - 55 lens gave too small a view of the rooms.

She showed me pictures (on the web) of a house she is interested in and it was clear to me that the verticals were all splayed outwards (from bottom to top) but gave a wider view of the rooms (or appeared to). She didn't seem to mind the splaying and will be looking at another way to get the type of pictures she wants.

But at least she considered the option of the standard lens.

Thanks for all your help - I'm sure it will be invaluable to others searching for advice on the same topic.
Click to expand...
If she wants to use an ultra wide but doesn't want the converging verticals, she can raise the level of the camera to half the height of the room, this will help dramatically! If it's a tall room, consider using a remote trigger!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top