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

MjMart85 wrote:

Happy New Year everybody! First of all, I currently own a 17-40 mm and find that it is pretty good, and the price point was awesome when I bought it. I am shooting more and more real estate and a few people have told me to move up to the 16-35mm.. Am I really gaining that much more with that lens? I shoot with a Canon 5d Mark III. Any info you can provide would be greatly appreciated!

-Matt

Although 17-40 is an old lens optically I don't think you will gain a lot more with 16-35 (which series?). There's no time pressure for shooting real estate.

Use tripod, close down the aperture and make more than one shot.  Even the most mediocre lenses are decent at f/8.0.

MjMart85 wrote:

Happy New Year everybody! First of all, I currently own a 17-40 mm and find that it is pretty good, and the price point was awesome when I bought it. I am shooting more and more real estate and a few people have told me to move up to the 16-35mm.. Am I really gaining that much more with that lens? I shoot with a Canon 5d Mark III. Any info you can provide would be greatly appreciated!

-Matt

i have a canon 17-40 f4.0 and love it! however, for architecture, i would go for a canon 16-35 f4.0 IS due to its newer and better optics/technology and less distortion edge and corners compared to 17-40mm as i have read reviews and viewed photos on this forum and many other sources! if i was on the market for acquiring a 16-35mm, i would go to a local shop and test it for myself and make a realistic judgement!

RE: >> a few people have told me to move up to the 16-35mm <<

Who? Why? What?

What's real estate?

Pictures for the web and quick-print brochures with no picture bigger that 8 x 10?

Spreads in Architectural Digest magazine?

Prints 20 x 30 hanging in architects' offices? Or 30 x 45?

BAK

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.

BAK wrote:

RE: >> a few people have told me to move up to the 16-35mm <<

Who? Why? What?

Another professional who shoots real estate photography for 50+ agents in my area.

What's real estate?

Listing photos, advertising print photos etc.

Pictures for the web and quick-print brochures with no picture bigger that 8 x 10?

95% for MLS and Website advertising for property listings.

Spreads in Architectural Digest magazine?

Negative.. I'm not at that level yet.

Prints 20 x 30 hanging in architects' offices? Or 30 x 45?

Also not at this time.

BAK

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.

MjMart85 wrote:

Happy New Year everybody! First of all, I currently own a 17-40 mm and find that it is pretty good, and the price point was awesome when I bought it. I am shooting more and more real estate and a few people have told me to move up to the 16-35mm.. Am I really gaining that much more with that lens? I shoot with a Canon 5d Mark III. Any info you can provide would be greatly appreciated!

The 16-35/4L IS is an amazing lens at a very reasonable price. Even if you stop down to (say) f/8 the 17-40 is much less sharp in the full frame corners. The IS and the extra FoV are obviously useful. If you're making money, I'd say why not spend some of it on an excellent upgrade.

hotdog321 wrote:

I would switch to the 16-35 f/4L IS, though the 16-35 f/2.8L III is also a winner. First, that extra millimeter is pretty sweet for architectural work. Second, the critical edges and corners are much sharper on full frame bodies. Finally, the IS function is useful if you find yourself in a "run and gun" or video situation and don't have time for a tripod.

As an aside, I'm in love with the 11-24 f/4L for architecture, but it is pretty pricey and heavy.

for serious architecture photography, i don't think if any other lens can come close to canon TSE 17mm/24mm lenses! but prices for those 2 lenses are a bit steep! if someone uses those lenses for business and can cover the price, eventually, i think that should be the 1st consideration! canon 16-35 IS/1635 f2.8 III are excellent, also, but not as brilliant as TSE lenses, IMO! YMMV.

For real estate I think the 17L TS ir even a 15 or 14 mm  lens will make more of a difference.

Greg OH wrote:

A lighting tip: Use bounce flash, with the flash head pointing behind you (if there's a white wall) or up and behind you (to reach the ceiling). That should give you nice, even light without the variability of existing light, or a tripod.

good point, do you put the flash behind you on a stand, then?

MjMart85 wrote:

Happy New Year everybody! First of all, I currently own a 17-40 mm and find that it is pretty good, and the price point was awesome when I bought it. I am shooting more and more real estate and a few people have told me to move up to the 16-35mm.. Am I really gaining that much more with that lens? I shoot with a Canon 5d Mark III. Any info you can provide would be greatly appreciated!

-Matt

Noticeable difference between 16mm vs 17mm.  Especially indoors.

And the 17-40L is soft. So yes, upgrade is a must.