Canon 17-40mm L vs 16-35mm L for Real Estate Photography

diness wrote:

MjMart85 wrote:

Thank you!! That is what I assumed .. I think that I have been able to get some pretty good shots with the 17-40. I have also shot HDR a few times and had some excellent results. I think in that case I'll pass on the 16-35.. I was looking at the Series 2. I figured if anything I'd sell my 17-40 for $500, and then the difference wouldn't be that bad, but I think I'll invest the funds into a solid portrait lens. I was also looking into the Sigma 85mm 1.4 art.

What do you shoot if you don’t shoot HDR? I do exclusively HDR for real estate and it’s wonderful. Some people use multiple off camera flashes as well. Don’t bother with the f2.8 version 1 or 2. Most of us were talking about the f4 is, which is great. There is also an f2.8 version iii which is also supposed to be great, but way too much cost to be worth it for what you do.

Honestly, I think spend some more time perfecting HDR and you will get much more improvement from that! What program are you using for it now? How many exposures do you put together?

The first couple of properties that I photographed I shot with two off camera flashes that was mostly trial/error (mostly error) lol.. The last couple I have shot exclusively HDR and the difference was pretty substantial. I am still getting used to the 5D Mark III as I purchased it last year as an upgrade from a crop sensor. I love it so far, but seem to do much better at shooting portraits. I'm still learning the light techniques and how to shoot difficult interiors, but I think I am getting better. I am also trying to get better at using lightroom and photoshop to do things like blue sky backgrounds in windows and doors. I haven't seemed to be able to perfect it.