best lens for interiors

[erin_archey]

<p>I'm shooting an interior of a small house and looking for the best wide angle lens that won't distort the image or lose quality on the outer edges. The house gets plenty of natural light. Any suggestions on what lens would provide the best bang for my buck?<br>

thanks</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Best bang for the buck is 15 mm fisheye and then defish it. Also Sigma 12-24 but test it before buying, they are notoriously iffy on quality control.</p>

<p>Alternatively rent a 17mm Tilt Shift lens for the one job, much cheaper and better.</p>

[scott_ferris]

Edit: Sorry Erin, these suggestions were assuming you were using a ff camera (I don't know why I assumed that!).The tilt shift learning curve is pretty steep but unmatchable for architecture. How good do you need the images to be and what are you shooting with?

 

 

Take care, Scott.

[erin_archey]

<p>Thanks for the information - I shoot with a classic Canon 5D and the images will likely be used in a magazine.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Erin,</p>

<p>In that case I would seriously consider renting the 17mm tilt shift, rent it for a weekend first though and read up on t/s techniques.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>16-35mm f/2.8 L, 17-40mm f/4 L, or 14mm L prime depending on budget.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I just did one about 2 weeks ago and I used my 5D with 17-40 with flash (Bounce) on a tripod. Along with wired shutter release. It worked great. v/r Buffdr</p>

[sbp]

<p>Another vote for the TS, either 17 or 24. These are unmatched at controlling distortion and converging lines, which are particularly noticeable in architectural work. Start saving your pennies if you rent one, though. Once you see what these lenses can do there's no going back...</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The 17-40/4 L, 16-35/2.8 L, 14/2.8 L or 17 TS-E. I have used a 14 and 17 on full frame or film, for interiors and my preference would be the 14/2.8 L. The 17 TS-E has very significant advantages for exterior architecture and landscape shots that make it a serious contender if you have a mega budget.</p>

[aginbyte]

<p>17mm ts, definitely. 24mm ts if 17 is not available.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Let's just pause and think about this before jumping to the conclusion that a TS lens is needed. One reason is that the TS24II and TS17 are about as good as it gets as conventional WA lenses – which they need to be, because any further correction of aberrations has to be hand-crafted, with none of the support for automatic correction provided by DPP for other lenses.</p>

<p>But that's about it for "an interior of a small house ". You are pretty unlikely to be using the tilt movement for architectural work other than in a very few special circumstances, so it's the shift movement that is possibly of value. And for the exteriors of buildings, and for grand interiors such as churches and cathedrals, or indeed any buildings including domestic ones which have interior spaces spanning multiple floors, the shift movement of a TS lens is just the job. But when you are photographing rooms where eye-level is already half-way from floor to ceiling, you simply don't need shift, and a conventional WA, provided it is wide enough, will give the desired coverage. You will then need to correct the barrel distortion that even the best such lenses suffer from, and DPP will do that for you very effectively. For best results you should choose a lens that does not need too much correction (don't even think about de-fishing a fish-eye image for this sort of work), and the 16~35II may be a slightly better bet than the 17~40 for that reason, but at a much higher price. I can assure you from personal experience that excellent results are obtainable at 17mm from the 17~40 stopped down to about f/8.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>If you are thinking inside the box, eye-level shots, standard DOF/plane of focus etc etc. Then sure the 17-40 will work fine on a 5D. Not as well as a good Sigma 12-24 but fine.</p>

<p>If you want your work to stand out, if you are looking for "different" angles etc then the TS-E's will make your 17-40 look amateurish. The other huge benefit of the TS lenses is the perfect stitching abilities, again the 17-40 images can be stitched, but the TS ones can be done perfectly.</p>

<p>If I were on assignment to photo a small house interior for a magazine spread the one lens I would take/rent/borrow would be the 17mm TS. There are no drawbacks to using it over the 17-40, indeed the basic 17mm unshifted/tilted image is much better than the zooms, but the added functionality is worth way more. <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-ts-e-17mm-f4-l/for-canon">And at $126</a> is far and away the best bang for Erin's buck.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Scott, of course I agree that there are "out of the box" shots for which a TS lens would provide options that a conventional lens would not. A small proportion of shots of that kind could certainly add to the overall impact of a portfolio. But less is more; too much of that kind of thing can just become gimmicky and irritating, and would be unlikely to deliver the client's expectations. There is no sense in which use of the TS17 for shots not using the movements would make results from the 17~40 look "amateurish", certainly not if both lenses are stopped down to f/5.6 or beyond. Not all interior shots require as wide an angle as that offered by a 17mm lens, and there's no merit in using one and then cropping significantly. As for short-term hire, that's a good way to go if you already know how to use a TS lens effectively. I know from many years experience with my TS24 that these lenses have a long learning curve. </p>

[ejder]

<p>TS-E lenses give a less perspective-distorted image when stitched, compared to standard wide-angle lenses. The result is generally better from a technical standpoint. In any case, if you're stitching you should be shooting with a tripod and head that has the ability to tell you the degrees of camera rotation in any direction. You should also hopefully have some knowledge of properly lighting interiors.</p>

<p>Another alternative is a fisheye. Stitching programs have a feature that corrects for that distortion.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I just started shooting real estate as well. I use a 5D Mark II and my beloved 17-40 F4L with two Canon 580 EX speed lights and a couple Alien Bees AB800's. I have found the lighting is the most important part. My Real Estate instructor used a Digital Rebel with the 18-55 kit lens and makes pretty good money with it. Tripod, HDR and and speedlights are the secrets. Straighting lines is very easy in Photoshop I wouldn't waste money on Tilt Shift lenses until your business can justify it. I would spend the extra money on marketing materials or real estate photography classes. You can make HDR and stitching work with very minimal equipment it is more about process than equipment.<br>

PS - For the money the 17-40 F4L is the best L-series lens available. I see less vignetting and distorted lines at 17MM than the Canon 24-105 IS has at 24MM. I also use Tamron and Sigma lenses, but al lof my future lenses will be L-series or Canon primes.</p>

[mark_muse]

<p>Zeiss ZE 21mm. It is lovely on my 5D2. My 17-40 now collects dust.</p>