Next Lens to Get for Still Life

<p>I have a Canon 40D - but I have intentions to eventually upgrade bodies, so I want to get the best lenses. I am doing a lot of studio still life. From fairly close in - one flower - to larger, around 3 - 4 feet in area.<br>

I currently have:<br>

A Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. I don't use this much in the studio. I have a small shooting area, so it's hard to back up enough to use it.<br>

I also have the kit lens: 28-135mm f/5.6 Frankly, I end up using this lens in the studio. It gives me the most options, it has some macro ability, it's quicker and easier to manual focus than the 70-200. It even oddly looks sharper than the 70-200!<br>

I love sharpness and I've heard that prime lenses are sharper than zoom lenses and less expensive.<br>

What lens would be a smart next purchase?<br>

(p.s. I also dream of the Telephoto EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM - but it will have to wait a bit!)</p>

<table id="prod_info_tbl" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td valign="top">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="567">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">

<tbody>

<tr valign="top">

<td width="352"><br /></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I'd definitely go with a macro so you can do close ups and get a nice tight shot of non-close up still lifes. I would suggest either the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro or the EF 10mm f/2.8 macro, but since you want to go FF, I'd rule out the 60mm. The new 100mm f/2.8L IS macro would be amazing, especially since it has IS, but its quite expensive. I think the original 100mm macro would still be a treat.</p>

<p>Leslie,<br>

First . . . Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 IS L Macro.<br>

Beautiful Bokeh and natural light capabilities when needed!<br>

Secondly . . . When you decide to replace the kit lens, consider the Tamron AF 17-50 f/2.8 Aspherical (IF) LD XR DiII SP. Also available with VR/IS.<br>

I don't have the VR/IS but I bought this lens last year, I've also never been a big fan of third party lenses, but this lens is amazing! I thought I wanted an "L" in the same focal length, but at the time I could'nt afford it and found the Tamron used in like new condition. It's crisp and clear and the f2.8 has it's usual advantages. Since my purchase I have heard of this lenses reputation and would agree. Like I said, for the money it's amazing.<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Jim J.</p>

<p>A macro lens could be useful. Some suggestions that come to mind are Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro, Tamron 60mm f/2 macro, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, one of the Canon 100mm macros, or Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro. There are many others.</p>

<p>Another possibility would be some extension tubes to use with the 70-200/4 or 28-135.</p>

<p>Are you generally shooting with a tripod?</p>

<p>Don’t overlook the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. It has the best image quality of any 50 prime

Canon makes, and that’s really saying something. It won’t take you all the way to 1:1

macro, but I don’t get the impression that you’re looking for that level of magnification.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Wow, thanks for all the great suggestions. I'm going to look into all of these lenses.</p>

<p>Oh, I forgot to add. Yes, I'm usually working with a tri-pod and mirror lock-up, cable release.</p>

<p>With tripod and MLU, the original Canon 100mm macro suggested by Nathan may be your best bet. You don't need to pay the extra bucks for IS.</p>

If you can't back up far enough when using your 70-200, then look for something with a FL less than 70 mm. I like the 50 compact macro suggestion.

<p>Check out Canon 50/2.5 and Sigma 50/2.8</p>

<p>If your 70-200 is too long then don't get a 100 mm lens or longer. 50 or 60 mm will work best when shooting in a small space. I really like my Tamron 90/2.8 but this lens may be too long for you.</p>

<p>A macro is a nice addition, especially if you are going small on still lifes. I too have a 90mm f/2.8 Tamron and find it very useful.<br>

However for your purposes, I wonder if something like the 50mm f/1.4 might not be more practical for the studio setting. Working as you do, a TS-E lens even like the 45mm lens is an expensive, but useful lens for still life work - tilt for focal plane, for example. The 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 are shorter "normal" alternatives so long as you stick with an APS-C body.</p>

<p>I would consider the 50mm 1.4 as well since anything over 70mm is too long for your application. Use your feet as zoom. This lens should perform well in low light conditions as well and will produce smooth bokehs for portrait work. </p>

<p>I have about 6-7 feet of comfortable working space. (6 feet more comfortable, but 7 doable.) I can get more if I move to another spot, but I've found the light to be good - and my table set-up location good in this spot.<br>

What would be better for quality - an extension tube for the 70-200 or another lens? I can't really spring for over $800 right now. (Less would be better!)<br>

You all have opened up ideas for I hadn't considered and I'm off reading reviews of the different suggestions. As pointed out, since I would only be using this lens for certain controlled things, I may be able to get away with a less expensive lens (without IS for example), but still have better quality than my kit lens.<br>

Review: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/page5.asp</p>

<p>Oops, I guess that review is just for a normal 50mm. Still. Interesting. The price is not to bad on the original Canon 100mm macro. I'm seeing it for a little over $500.</p>

<p>OK, I'm feeling a bit "challenged" ;-) but is there a difference between the amount of space you need between a telephoto and macro? The closest I can get to be able to focus the 70-200mm is around 5 feet. Zoom in and it's more like 7 feet. With the 28-135 which has some macro capability, I'm able to be very close physically AND fill the frame better than with the 70-200.<br>

So in other words, can I be physically closer with a 100mm macro than a 100mm telephoto?</p>

<p>One more to consider: Sigma 70/2.8 macro. FWIW all macro lenses are super sharp. Any of them will beat your zooms, especially at close focusing distances. I'd go this route instead of tubes.</p>

<p>Canon 50/2.5 is an old-fashioned lens, but it works great and is super sharp. Be aware that it has 5 aperture blades which can produce rough-looking bokeh in some situations. $265</p>

<p>Sigma 50/2.8 has 7 blades which is better. This lens is known for sharpness and slow AF - not a big deal for still-life. $300</p>

<p>Canon 60/2.8 is known for fast AF (given that it's a macro lens), sharpness, and super smooth bokeh. 8 circular blades. Be aware, crop factor only. $410</p>

<p>Sigma 70/2.8, like it's 50 mm cousin, focuses really slow and is prone to AF hunting. But it's super sharp and has 9 aperture blades. About $500.</p>

<p>Yes, much closer. You probably wouldn't need the 1:1 ratio but the 100mm Macro will focus as close as you would probably ever need.<br>

I don't know just how big the objects you are shooting are (maybe my definition/understanding of Still life are outdated), but I just checked with my 100mm Macro mounted on a 50D in a 12'X12' room and I would have no problem at all doing a medium sized 12" potted flower arrangement or say an object covering 2 cubic feet, and that's with the 1.6 crop factor, so the 100mm lens is like a 160mm focal length. So yes, IMHO a "true" Macro lens has its advantages.<br>

When you are using your 28-135, and have your composition where you want it, what focal length are you zoomed to?<br>

I am just thinking that if you go with either the 50 or 60mm Macro you will be dissapointed when you indicate a "dream of the Telephoto EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM."<br>

I think that even if you upgrade from the 40D to a Full Frame the 100mm Macro will still be very useful in still life photography.</p>

 

<p>I'd go with the 50mm 2.5 CM. Great edge to edge sharpness here.</p>

<p>You need to scrap the idea of using a zoom for still lifes and get yourself a dedicated macro lens. 50mm or 100mm or something along the lines of that in FX format.</p>

<p>The EF-S 60 f/2.8 macro is very nice on the 40D, and is short enough to be useful in your work area. While you can get closer with a 100 mm macro lens than with a regular 100 mm tele lens, the image in the viewfinder starts out the same size, and just keeps getting bigger from there. If you can't back up far enough to get everything in the frame with a zoom at 100 mm, you won't do any better with a 100 mm macro.</p>

<p>The EF-S 60 macro strikes a good balance in FL on a crop sensor camera like the 20D-7D series, and makes for a good all around portrait/prime, as well as offering astounding macro capabilities. It's a gem of a lens, and a good value that doesn't depreciate to boot. </p>

<p>Ok, just been looking at what I've been using for the most part in studio. I will definately eventually need more primes. I'd like to do more still lifes of roughly this size - some smaller. I think this was probably close to 4 feet wide and I used 40mm.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10473507<br>

I notice I use around 80-90mm quite a bit:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10219591<br>

but I also often go in at 135mm to get as macro as I can. I would love to do more true macro, but I'd say the still lifes are priority for me.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10473499<br>

I'm trying to fine-tune my understanding of lenses. I know the basics - but I'm often not even thinking about should I back up and zoom, should I go in closer instead - I just intuitively fill the frame the way I want to. I really want to improve my photography to be the best it can be.<br>

I wish I could test out a better lens against my kit lens to see just how much better it could be. I'm wondering if it might be worth it to go rent a lens from Paris one of these days to try before I buy. (I miss the convenience of resources when I lived in San Francisco!)<br>

Thanks for all this great advice.</p>

<p>Jim,<br>

I was just looking on the Canon site, it says: Like all Canon EF-S Lenses, its use is restricted to the EOS 20D, EOS Digital Rebel and EOS Digital Rebel XT cameras (as of February 2005). <br>

So I guess I can't use it on my 40D. </p>

<p>James, I just read a good review of the Tamron: (I've linked to the conclusion.)<br>

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review5.html</p>

<p>I was just looking over some close-ups I did with the 70-200mm, I CAN get close enough for over 100mm. So, I'm torn between a 50 and 100mm macro. I've been doing research and I see a lot of people use a 50mm, but I've also read that they can be annoying because you get in the way of your lights when you have to be in so close.<br>

I have the book, <em>Closeup Shooting</em> by Cyrill Harnischmacher and a lot of his examples are with a 50mm. Also compelling is that a lot of people seem to use one for portrait. The book, <em>Macro Photography for Gardners and Nature Lovers</em> by Alan L. Detrick uses the 180mm macro, which is why I had that on my wish list. I just reviewed his section on lenses- indeed the lack of working distance and wide perspective are noted as disadvantages of a 50mm macro. He says the 100mm is a good choice and has the advantage of being usable in "normal" photography.<br>

Hmm. I'm starting to lean to a 100mm.</p>

<p>Leslie,</p>

<p>As of 2005, Canon's xxD line consisted only of the 10D, which cannot use EF-S lenses, and the 20D, which can. Rest assured that your 40D will take EF-S lenses just fine.</p>