Getting into real estate imaging - need the AF-S 10-24mm?

[ronald_smith2]

<p>For various reasons that I won't bore you with, I am now forced into cultivating a secondary (and maybe primary) income from photography. Starting in the new year, my hours at my workplace will be cut in half as well as the earnings. I have been slowly developing and marketing myself and have been able to expand my photographic horizons to the point where I have a name and a reputation - being published in local newspapers helps.</p>

<p>No, I really need to step up to the plate and make enough income to at least match the loss of earnings. I have investigated doing some real estate imaging and have contacted about 50 local brokers and offering my services. From yesterday's mass email ad, I already have had one person who wants to try my services; I am doing listings for portfolio development at no charge to the first three who commit to my offer.</p>

<p>From extensive work with doing photographic inventories of personal belongings for clients, my 16-85mm VR can serve me well but I feel I will ultimately need to go wider. Of course, for Nikon people, they have the new AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5~f/4.5 along with the older AF-S 12-24mm f/4. I can easily implement my SB-800 and SB-600 into the equation as the best RE images often blend both available light and flash.</p>

<p>Has any regular reader done any real state imaging? Do I really need the UWA zoom? I know there are third-party alternatives, such as the Sigma 10-20mm.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Nikon 10-24 DX is a very pleasant lens to work, I use it a lot when travelling. And it is really wide and good for architecture. I read also good things about SIgma 10-20.</p>

<p>IMHO if the budget is not so generous at this time, it is better to not purchase any lens but to start with what you have. 16mm must be enough wide for now. After a while, if your service is welcomed by real estate agents in your area, you have to consider to buy a 24PC-E tilt & shilt lens that can help you get correction perspective, which is a norm for architectural work.</p>

<p>Good luck with your photographic venture!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Is there really any long-term money in this? Anybody?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ronald, I am not sure about your targeted market, but the images on my local real-estate flyers and brochures are of fairly low quality. I routines see images of houses that are heavily back lit with no details on the product (i.e. the houses, interior and exterior) they are trying to sell. I live in a middle-class neighborhood in the Silicon Valley in California. We have plenty of sunshine here so that if you don't choose a good time to shoot outdoors, you can easily get too much contrast or get into a heavily back-lit situation.</p>

<p>If you need to capture a lot of interior images, having 10mm is a major plus, but my guess is that the market does not require well composed, super sharp, and well lit images for your typical real estate sales. It may be different if your target market is multi-million-dollar mansions.</p>

[mike_smith61]

<p>Hi Ronald,<br>

As a professional real estate photographer, I would highly recommend the Sigma 10-20. Yeah - you read that correctly. That lens is more than capable to do the job you want, it doesn't cost much (comparatively), it's great quality, and it's super-wide (though you will need to correct distortion in post-production). I shoot with it every day and it pays the bills just fine. I would advocate spending time and money on marketing materials and less on gear. I'd also advise checking out your online resources such as the RealEstatePhotographyPodcast.com (my site) and PhotographyForRealEstate.net (not my site).<br>

Thanks,<br>

Mike</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I get emails from a few brokers around the US regarding properties of interest and some of the photography is excellent. High-end, high dollar properties often have extensive and very professional brochures printed on high quality paper, so I do believe a market exists.</p>

<p>I have the 16-85 and 10-24 and would highly recommend the 10-24 for interior architecture. I would also recommend a great tripod (you didn't mention it). I don't see straightened lines, so I wouldn't worry about a PC lens. Panorama stitching might be more useful, as some websites have full room (or yard) panoramas.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[ronald_smith2]

<p>All great responses. I got some more feedback from my emails, one wanted to be taken off the email list=) One had a wife who was aspiring to be a photographer. I had someone else interested only if I had a super wide angle lens to get into tight quarters. This is request from someone who is not a photographer, not sure if they really are referring to the likes of the Nikon 10-24mm.</p>

<p>My target area are homes that are under $200,000 - at least for now. If/when I can build a portfolio of decent work, the rest should follow, naturally. The hard part is to convince someone they need my services.</p>

<p>I am wondering if I should take a leap of faith and get the 10-24mm - with the intention it would help sell my work, kind of like getting a nice power-saw before becoming a wood lot developer. I would *think* I could sell it down the road for a good price, I am giving myself a time line of a month to gauge true interest. By the end of January, if I don't see light at the end of the tunnel, it may be time to try something else.</p>

<p> </p>

[hamish_gray]

<p>In Norway there is definitely a market for real estate photography. I get assignments every week for just such. It has become the norm, especially in the larger cities, that all real estate is photographed by professionals. I often meet clients that say they have tried to take pictures themselves with their own camera but the result was bad and that they want better quality. I offer everything from 360 panoramas (for which I use the Sigma 8mm fisheye and a specially designed tripod head), to altitude shots. In doors I generally use the Nikkor 10-24, shoot at 10mm and then crop if necessary. Using photoshop I eliminate any barrel effect that may arise. A tripod is a must for this type of work!</p>

<p>I know of some that use the Sigma 10-20 and a few that use the Tokina 11-16.<br>

I have photographed real estate from £50000 to £300000. As the standard of real estate increases in the years to come so will the demand, so I say go for it. There is definitely a rising demand for this type of work.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>When I was looking for my house, the photos of the houses were pretty bad. To be frank, mine weren't much better when I was taking shots for a record of what I saw. So that probably represents a market for someone with better skill. I gained an appreciation for how difficult this is to do well. But it seems like the rewards could be substantially valuable to both clients and real estate agents.</p>

<p>All I have to contribute is that in my own pictures, distortion was a problem as was poor lighting. And I was told at the time that 20mm (in full frame -- so 14mm or so in APS) was an often used focal length. The Zeiss 21/2.8 from the old Kyocera Contax line was often adapted to Canon bodies (though now they make it with the Canon mount too) because it was considered nearly distortion free. I'm guessing tripods, levels to make sure your camera is level, and knowing how to light the rooms is going to be key to getting good shots. They were certainly my weaknesses. Hope things work out.</p>

[ronald_smith2]

<p>Yes, all my work will be from a tripod. It's a love/hate thing with that piece of equipment. I have been reviewing the Sigma 10-20mm, it gets decent comments but the HSM model (at least in Nikon mount) lacks an AF/MF switch, as does my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, which is a superb optic.</p>

<p>The Nikon 10-24mm is an investment; I think I need to try to shoot a couple homes before I plunk down the money for it, and I know I could sell it and get back most of my money if it didn't work out, or it pays for itself in short order. I have successfully shot many interiors with the 16-85mm to show of their sweeping lines.</p>

<p>Again, I stress, this doesn't have to be a full-time job, I'd combine it with many other facets of photography - shooting aerials from my dad's float plane, inventories, weddings and even freelancing with the local rag. Today's shooter needs to be a jack of all trades to some degree.</p>

[ronald_smith2]

<p>I am thinking that wintertime isn't going to be a lucrative time to start this endeavor. Of the 50 emails sent, only two have given me positive signs, I guess that's better than no responses. There will not be any great influx of new listings this time of year.</p>

<p>I could/should possibly look at offering this same service to the general public sector - many people sell their homes, on heir own, without a realtor's help, surely good images would be needed for those individuals.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I would advocate spending time and money on marketing materials and less on gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ronald, Mike Smith gave you very good advice, as quoted above.</p>

<p>If you simply want the Nikon 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX, it is a fairly good lens. But as I mentioned earlier, quality requirements for the type of real estate images we are taking about is not particularly high. That lens is an overkill, but having 10mm is a pretty big plus for interior images.</p>

[ronald_smith2]

<p>Shun, all I really want to do for now is get a decent portfolio of images, maybe even create a Website. I think it would not be very prudent of me to spend over $1000 for a lens unless I am actually earning regular paychecks from my endeavor. I have one realtor who I am working with that seems to want my services and have had good dialogue about this potential side business. Once I get to know some of these agents, I will have a better understanding about the local market.</p>

<p>Many agents take a break this time of year, as I was told by one, today.</p>

<p>All the advice in this thread has been sound and very useful. Now, if only a good photo.net member would buy me the 10-24mm for Christmas!</p>

[ronald_smith2]

<p>For anyone who has followed this thread, I did a shoot for a RE agent two days ago, the listing is here: http://www.remaxsouthshore.ca/index.php?action=listingview&listingID=195</p>

<p>Couple things - when I created the JPEG's from the original NEF's and sent them to the agent, the upload service to REALTOR.ca resized them to a mere 20 KB or so (from 1.5 MB!). My agent friend found many had become pix-elated, no problem to see the artifacts. He has found this to be n ongoing trouble spot. He can easily resize with PhotoShop Elements to 320x214 to fit the limitations of the Web page.</p>

<p>He can still use the high-quality JPEGs for brochures.</p>

<p>I had no trouble with the 16-85mm to get what I needed. I used the D80 and SB-800 in bounce mode at ISO 400 for the images, I was able to strike a happy balance between available outdoor light and the Speedlight exposures. Many RE listings feature washed out windows and door areas, he agent noted these are a big improvement over what he can do.</p>

<p>The slightly curved distorted lines in some of the files are not a problem, the agent wasn't concerned about that.</p>

<p>My big challenge is to convince more agents to use my services. Most realtors only take 10 or so files (this one wanted 30, the max REALTOR.ca allows) and are traditionally on the cheap side. Of course, their photography speaks for itself.</p>

<p>Even if I had two or three local agents that were willing to pay me for their listings, I'd be satisfied to get 10 a month at this point - that would be $1000 if I charged $100 per session. Of course, I might be able to get more if I branched out my business to the Halifax/Dartmouth area and charged higher fees for the gas expenses involved.</p>

<p>If I was busy enough to do this much shooting, I'd try to get another SB-800 or the new SB-900 - that would seem more useful than the 10-24mm, although the latter would certainly create unique perspectives but I'd need to be exceeding my goal to entertain the idea.</p>

<p> </p>